The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned

[RedSky]

I was being sarcastic.

Not wise in a thread where people have already been warned for baiting.

Dier, they signed from sporting. Apart from Kane none of their academy players played any significant mins in the league. One more myth that spurs promote their academy players. They just take punt on many younger players, one or two will stand out.

Tom Carroll - 1193mins
Ryan Mason - 1311mins
Danny Rose - 2659mins
Kyle Walker - 3123mins
Harry Kane - 4027mins

Not too bad tbh. Expect to see Edwards added to that list next year and possibly Harrison.

 

[roonster09]

Tom Carroll - 1193mins
Ryan Mason - 1311mins
Danny Rose - 2659mins
Kyle Walker - 3123mins
Harry Kane - 4027mins

Not too bad tbh. Expect to see Edwards added to that list next year and possibly Harrison.

I said in league.
Carroll - 506 mins
Mason - 800 mins.
Walker is not their academy player, even Rose. Rose was from Leeds academy.

Even if you consider Rose then 2 players who played part rather than 1.

 

[RedSky]

I said in league.
Carroll - 506 mins
Mason - 800 mins.
Walker is not their academy player, even Rose. Rose was from Leeds academy.

Even if you consider Rose then 2 players who played part rather than 1.

Should be in all competitions, 1000mins is plenty of game time, that's over 11 games.

If you're saying Walker/Rose aren't academy players then the same has to apply to every other club. In that scenario we would have 2 players (lingard/rashford), so Tottenham would still be higher than us. Arsenal would have 1 (Iwobi). etc etc.

Fact is that Spurs brings through a number of young players which they develop from ages 17+, if that means buying players in to fill gaps so be it but they still train and evolve at that age. Frankly its a system that works for them so I wouldn't begrudge it at all. It's a canny move on their part and its something we should be doing more of.

Also I disagree with your point about scattergun transfers. They clearly set out last summer with the objective of improving their defense and midfield. They did that. This season they've continued to look at improving the midfield and attackers. They've finally landed what I think is one of the best Managers in the league and he's swiftly rebuilt the squad with the emphasis on youth and got them heading the right direction (finally).

What I do believe is that Spurs have picked bad managers for as long as I can remember. @GlastonSpur do you know when Levy was appointed Director? I did a quick google and couldn't find anything concrete, it mentioned he was responsible for George Graham which was back in 1998. I'm looking through the names and none really jump out as being a genuine success apart from possibly Redknapp. I was surprised at how high Villa-Boas' points per game was!

 

[roonster09]

Should be in all competitions, 1000mins is plenty of game time, that's over 11 games.

If you're saying Walker/Rose aren't academy players then the same has to apply to every other club. In that scenario we would have 2 players (lingard/rashford), so Tottenham would still be higher than us. Arsenal would have 1 (Iwobi). etc etc.

Fact is that Spurs brings through a number of young players which they develop from ages 17+, if that means buying players in to fill gaps so be it but they still train and evolve at that age. Frankly its a system that works for them so I wouldn't begrudge it at all. It's a canny move on their part and its something we should be doing more of.

Also I disagree with your point about scattergun transfers. They clearly set out last summer with the objective of improving their defense and midfield. They did that. This season they've continued to look at improving the midfield and attackers. They've finally landed what I think is one of the best Managers in the league and he's swiftly rebuilt the squad with the emphasis on youth and got them heading the right direction (finally).

What I do believe is that Spurs have picked bad managers for as long as I can remember. @GlastonSpur do you know when Levy was appointed Director? I did a quick google and couldn't find anything concrete, it mentioned he was responsible for George Graham which was back in 1998. I'm looking through the names and none really jump out as being a genuine success apart from possibly Redknapp. I was surprised at how high Villa-Boas' points per game was!

11 games is not a lot for 24 and 25 year old players. It's good for players who are making step up from reserves or academy.

I said you can consider Rose as he went directly to spurs academy but walker? He joined them when he was 19 and already played few senior games for his previous club. It's like saying Ronaldo was ManUtd academy player and also Rooney who joined when they were younger than walker.

Not sure why you brought ManUtd and arsenal into this as i didn't say 2 clubs did better than spurs. You missed CBJ in the list btw.

Since you brought let's see how many players played from ManUtd academy (Since we are considering Rose)

CBJ - 964 mins
Lingard - 2880 mins
Rashford - 1415 mins
Mcnair - 400 mins
Fosu mensah - 400 mins
Pereira - 370 mins
Januzaj - 261 mins

Also using players like lingard, Mason, Kane, Rose to prove team promotes academy players is like using examples of Fletcher, Evans, Scholes, Giggs. They broke into first team long back

Also I said scattergun approach to describe their previous transfers, not this season. Luckily for them their manager is making it work.

 

[RedSky]

11 games is not a lot for 24 and 25 year old players. It's good for players who are making step up from reserves or academy.

I said you can consider Rose as he went directly to spurs academy but walker? He joined them when he was 19 and already played few senior games for his previous club. It's like saying Ronaldo was ManUtd academy player and also Rooney who joined when they were younger than walker.

Not sure why you brought ManUtd and arsenal into this as i didn't say 2 clubs did better than spurs. You missed CBJ in the list btw.

Since you brought let's see how many players played from ManUtd academy (Since we are considering Rose)

CBJ - 964 mins
Lingard - 2880 mins
Rashford - 1415 mins
Mcnair - 400 mins
Fosu mensah - 400 mins
Pereira - 370 mins
Januzaj - 261 mins

Also using players like lingard, Mason, Kane, Rose to prove team promotes academy players is like using examples of Fletcher, Evans, Scholes, Giggs. They broke into first team long back

Also I said scattergun approach to describe their previous transfers, not this season. Luckily for them their manager is making it work.

CBJ didn't have 1000+ minutes, so he wasn't listed.

Your main point was that it was a myth that Tottenham promote Academy players. I listed 5 players with 1000+ minutes from last season. It is not a myth, you were wrong.

Previous seasons had different Managers in charge. Tottenham finally have a good Manager. We had 2 bad Managers in a row and also had scattergun tactics, so i'm not sure what your point is except being negative about Tottenham because they aren't Manchester United. I'm a United supporter but can recognise when a rival club is doing well, others seem to find any excuse in the sun to attack Spurs. I find it completely bizarre.

They don't like it up em

 

[Kraftwerker]

Dier grew up in Portugal. They signed him when he was 20 and was already a starter for Sporting.

Ah right. Think I was aware of that but it slipped my mind.

So Kane's the only true academy player they've brought through who's risen to any degree of prominence. Mason too if we're being kind I guess.

Fair to say that's all Spurs have brought through in last 10 years or so? No one memorable sticks out from their previous teams as a standout youth product.

Makes you wonder what the hell Glaston et al are on about. Far from having a brilliant academy it seems it's produced one top class player and one decent squad option.

 

[roonster09]

CBJ didn't have 1000+ minutes, so he wasn't listed.

Your main point was that it was a myth that Tottenham promote Academy players. I listed 5 players with 1000+ minutes from last season. It is not a myth, you were wrong.

Previous seasons had different Managers in charge. Tottenham finally have a good Manager. We had 2 bad Managers in a row and also had scattergun tactics, so i'm not sure what your point is except being negative about Tottenham because they aren't Manchester United. I'm a United supporter but can recognise when a rival club is doing well, others seem to find any excuse in the sun to attack Spurs. I find it completely bizarre.

It's a myth when you use players like walker to prove the point, using players like Mason and Carroll who are 25 and 24 years but played around 1000 mins.

Who said spurs aren't doing well? Some people just argue with themselves in their heads. I said spurs were better than us last season and didn't agree with some of the points and I backed why I didn't agree. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Glanville95]

I think they're business this window has been sensible so I'm not are I understand much of the criticism aimed at them. They've got a settled first eleven, that seems to be developing and flourishing very well with few noticeable weakness areas. I do think one marquee forward player - right winger/attacking midfielder - could take them to another level. Thought Gotze could have been a good option but that ships sailed.

Regardless, it's more a question of improving their depth so they have a squad to compete on all fronts. I suppose with the new stadium move they're transfer funds are hugely restricted. Wanyama and Janssen are good additions though, but I don't know much about that French winger they signed. Could probably do with another centre back for depth too IMO.

I don't think they will find European contention too arduous. Their squads young and fresh and has more depth now. I can't see them competing for the title though. Think it's more a battle for top four this season and obviously finishing below Arsenal.

 

[balaks]

Ah right. Think I was aware of that but it slipped my mind.

So Kane's the only true academy player they've brought through who's risen to any degree of prominence. Mason too if we're being kind I guess.

Fair to say that's all Spurs have brought through in last 10 years or so? No one memorable sticks out from their previous teams as a standout youth product.

Makes you wonder what the hell Glaston et al are on about. Far from having a brilliant academy it seems it's produced one top class player and one decent squad option.

TBF most academies are like that - one great player comes through every few years which makes the academy worth it. It is extremely unusual to have top class players come through on a regular basis - best most hope for is a steady stream of players who can be good enough to get in the squad and perhaps develop into a top player. We did great developing Kane and it's possible we will have similar success with Marcus Edwards who finally looks like breaking into the squad. We have Onomah and Winks who look like good options in midfield for us. It's pretty good and certainly at least on par with some of the other respected academies out there.

 

[RedSky]

It's a myth when you use players like walker to prove the point, using players like Mason and Carroll who are 25 and 24 years but played around 1000 mins.

Who said spurs aren't doing well? Some people just argue with themselves in their heads. I said spurs were better than us last season and didn't agree with some of the points and I backed why I didn't agree. There is nothing wrong with that.

My point is that Mason, Kane and Carroll are Academy players!! Even if you decide to remove players that have been signed at 18 years old (which removes a large proportion of players from all clubs) then Spurs still have brought through 3 recently. So how is that a myth? It might not be as many as you might expect, but it's hardly zero is it?

One more myth that spurs promote their academy players.

Also if you look at the amount of possible minutes they could have played last season and then divide by their actual minutes you come out with:

Carroll played 25% of the season
Mason played 27% of the season
Kane played 76% of the season

Anyway i'll just agree to disagree with your point. I do find the whole debate about Academies interesting though! It's a bit like the term world class in football, just how young does a player have to be to be considered going through the academy?

 

[Kraftwerker]

TBF most academies are like that - one great player comes through every few years which makes the academy worth it. It is extremely unusual to have top class players come through on a regular basis - best most hope for is a steady stream of players who can be good enough to get in the squad and perhaps develop into a top player. We did great developing Kane and it's possible we will have similar success with Marcus Edwards who finally looks like breaking into the squad. We have Onomah and Winks who look like good options in midfield for us. It's pretty good and certainly at least on par with some of the other respected academies out there.

Nah, if you're going to hold up your academy structure as some trump card you have over United (as Glaston has tried to do) then you should have more than two first team players in 10 years to show for it.

Not saying you're doing that but listening to some of the stuff on here you'd think Spurs had their own version of La Masia. As is often the case with these posters, when you dig a little into it, the fallacy is exposed.

 

[roonster09]

My point is that Mason, Kane and Carroll are Academy players!! Even if you decide to remove players that have been signed at 18 years old (which removes a large proportion of players from all clubs) then Spurs still have brought through 3 recently. So how is that a myth? It might not be as many as you might expect, but it's hardly zero is it?



Also if you look at the amount of possible minutes they could have played last season and then divide by their actual minutes you come out with:

Carroll played 25% of the season
Mason played 27% of the season
Kane played 76% of the season

Anyway i'll just agree to disagree with your point. I do find the whole debate about Academies interesting though! It's a bit like the term world class in football, just how young does a player have to be to be considered going through the academy?

Walker never played for their academy, never was eligible to play. Like I said Rooney and Ronaldo joined ManUtd when they were younger than walker when he joined spurs.

I go by Mr.Mujac criteria(remember him saying on Twitter), player who joins academy and didn't play for senior team for their previous club.

Yeah let's agree to disagree. It's very interesting topic but not the right thread.

 

[BigDub]

Still waiting for a Spurs fan to post their '2nd Team'. Spurs got away with it on the injury front last season, this season they may not and a strong squad will be key. @GlastonSpur ?

Vorm

Trippier
Carter-Vickers (tho Dier is really the 4th choice CB)
Wimmer
Davies

Wanyama
Mason

Njie
Son
Chadli

Janssen

That'd probably be mine. There's certainly room for improvement, I think that's probably true of most team's second 11, but there are absolutely players there that can come into the first 11 and do a job if called upon. The most glaring issues in the squad were striker and defensive midfield, and both have been addressed this window. N'koudou also seems likely to come in and replace Njie. I would like to see us sign another midfielder to replace Mason as I don't think he's consistently good enough and possibly another CB. Otherwise I think the squad is in relatively good shape and it just comes down to whether we can put the funds together to make one big time, first 11 caliber signing.

 

[RedSky]

Vorm

Trippier
Carter-Vickers (tho Dier is really the 4th choice CB)
Wimmer
Davies

Wanyama
Mason

Njie
Son
Chadli

Janssen

That'd probably be mine. There's certainly room for improvement, I think that's probably true of most team's second 11, but there are absolutely players there that can come into the first 11 and do a job if called upon. The most glaring issues in the squad were striker and defensive midfield, and both have been addressed this window. N'koudou also seems likely to come in and replace Njie. I would like to see us sign another midfielder to replace Mason as I don't think he's consistently good enough and possibly another CB. Otherwise I think the squad is in relatively good shape and it just comes down to whether we can put the funds together to make one big time, first 11 caliber signing.

You think you'll flog Chadli? I know there were a few rumours the other day and given that N'Koudou plays on the left it would make sense to have N'Jie on the right backup, with N'Koudou on the left backup with Son being an option for all 3 positions. Agreed about Mason though.

 

[BigDub]

You think you'll flog Chadli? I know there were a few rumours the other day and given that N'Koudou plays on the left it would make sense to have N'Jie on the right backup, with N'Koudou on the left backup with Son being an option for all 3 positions. Agreed about Mason though.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Chadli was sold. There have been some reports linking him to Swansea I believe for 15 mil. Would be hard not to sell at that price. At the moment though it sounds like Njie is the more likely of the two to leave. Seeing a lot of reports saying he will be loaned to Marseille as part of the N'Koudou deal with an option to buy. Would be a bit of a shame. He was injured for a majority of last season and never really had a proper chance.

 

[RedSky]

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Chadli was sold. There have been some reports linking him to Swansea I believe for 15 mil. Would be hard not to sell at that price. At the moment though it sounds like Njie is the more likely of the two to leave. Seeing a lot of reports saying he will be loaned to Marseille as part of the N'Koudou deal with an option to buy. Would be a bit of a shame. He was injured for a majority of last season and never really had a proper chance.

I think that's just lazy journalism. You hear reports of deals like that all of the time and never mount to anything.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Still waiting for a Spurs fan to post their '2nd Team'. Spurs got away with it on the injury front last season, this season they may not and a strong squad will be key. @GlastonSpur ?

--------- Vorm
Trippier - Dier* - Wimmer - Davies
------ Wanyama - Bentaleb
Chadli ----- Son ---- N'Koudou
--------- Janssen

* Or Carter-Vickers if you don't allow a player from the first XI to be also list in the 2nd XI, albeit in a totally different position/

 

[GlastonSpur]

Walker won it in 2011-12 when Aguero won the league for City. That's how important the award is. ...

Very true. Walker won it in 2011-12 ... and now he's developed in the one of the very best RBs in the Prem. Which is why he started for England ahead of Clyne and deserved to do so.

... His point doesnt even make sense. He is just setting arbitrary number to prove something. If he wants Pre LVG number then how many of the spurs players were from Pre AVB? Just like ManUtd team, Spurs team was signed by 2-3 managers.

Also Post Moyes ManUtd tried to changed whole squad and that's the reason for huge number of signings and releases. It's not surprising there aren't many players in the 11 from Pre LVG days.

Most of the Spurs players are not a properly planned signings, just a scatter gun approach and thankfully for them their manager made them to tick.

My point makes perfect sense. Nor is it based on anything arbitrary - it's based on the same thing for both teams over the same time-frame ... because Pochettino arrived at the same time as LvG arrived at United.

I'm saying that the Spurs first XI is a much more settled unit, in contrast to that of United, which involves a much more chopped and changed mish-mash. This is clearly shown by the fact that eight of our first XI this coming season pre-dated the arrival of Poch, whilst only 3 (or 4 at a stretch) of United's first XI this coming season will pre-date LvG's arrival.

You say that "most of the Spurs players are not a properly planned signings, just a scatter gun approach". But in truth that would be a more accurate description of United's signings over the last 3 years - as the above statistic shows. It's United's first XI that's been endlessly chopped and changed, not that of Spurs.

 

[GlastonSpur]

All spending is net spend. It's you not looking at the whole financial equation.

I've no idea what this nonsense is suppose to mean ... and I doubt that you do either.

 

[thegregster]

I've no idea what this nonsense is suppose to mean ... and I doubt that you do either.

It's pretty clear to be honest.

You could have a -£40mil net spent in transfers in a given financial year and make an overall loss of £50mil.
You could have a +£40mil net spent in transfers in a given financial year and make a profit of £50mil.

You do have to look at the overall pic. Spurs have to come up with £750mil for their stadium.

 

[acnumber9]

I've no idea what this nonsense is suppose to mean ... and I doubt that you do either.

Money doesn't just appear out of thin air. You have income and you have outgoings. Anything spent is then net. As I've said before in these stupid net spend debates that it doesn't matter if your incomings are from selling players or by being sponsored by a brand of noodles. The money spent remains the same. Though obviously it's better if you don't have to sell players to buy players.

 

[Glanville95]

--------- Vorm
Trippier - Dier* - Wimmer - Davies
------ Wanyama - Bentaleb
Chadli ----- Son ---- N'Koudou
--------- Janssen

* Or Carter-Vickers if you don't allow a player from the first XI to be also list in the 2nd XI, albeit in a totally different position/

And here's @Rafateria suggesting Liverpool have a pretty damn good second XI and Spurs don't, when Spurs is probably just as good if not better.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Money doesn't just appear out of thin air. You have income and you have outgoings. Anything spent is then net. As I've said before in these stupid net spend debates that it doesn't matter if your incomings are from selling players or by being sponsored by a brand of noodles. The money spent remains the same. Though obviously it's better if you don't have to sell players to buy players.

The net-spend debates are usually related to making an assessment as to the quality (or otherwise) of a club's youth-development, scouting and transfer negotiation systems. This is why the net spent taken into account is that involved in buying and selling players, not packets of noodles. And this is why saying that "all spending is net spend" is irrelevant ... because for the stated purposes of discussion only transfer net-spend is relevant.

 

[acnumber9]

The net-spend debates are usually related to making an assessment as to the quality (or otherwise) of a club's youth-development, scouting and transfer negotiation systems. This is why the net spent taken into account is that involved in buying and selling players, not packets of noodles. And this is why saying that "all spending is net spend" is irrelevant ... because for the stated purposes of discussion only transfer net-spend is relevant.

Not really. Your net spend has garnered your club no trophies and hasn't done for the many years you've been banging on about it. Utd have had a terrible few years nobody disputes it so I don't know why you keep going on about it. Net spend is something Arsenal fans use to whinge on about too. Ultimately where did it get them? Utd won more. That's the aim of the game. Your net spend you're so proud of has been dependant on selling your best players for big money. Utd don't operate in that fashion.

Since Bale how many players have been bought and sold for a profit and how many for a loss?

 

[Sweech]

So, your reasoning for not signing higher level players is that your younger players will suffer under lack of game time? You do know for how many games you will be in this season, right? There will be plenty of opportunites to play and develop even with a broader squad. Furthermore, in general we don´t talk about teenagers here, who might be needed to be included mainly for the sake of development. Most of your young players are in their early twenties, so at a point in their careers when they should start to be able to put their foot down and play because of form and performances and not because the lack of serious alternatives.

If you follow this strategy you will run into two problems. The first is a high vulnerability to injuries. The weaker your options of cover, the higher the impact of injuries of key players. A longterm injury of Kane or Eriksen for example could ruin your whole season.

The second problem is the need to prioritise certain competitions. This could already been seen last season. In the EL the moment you ran into the first real CL calibre team, you threw in the towel, fielded a team with basically no chance of victory to concentrate on the league. Now, this might work for the EL as the competition is not regarded that highly in GB, but this won´t fly in the CL. The Champions League is in the eyes of most players the most prestigous and hardest competition, the biggest stage in Club Football.

If Tottenham does not sign at least two or even three potential first team players, I can see Pochettino running into quite the dilemma this season. Concentrating on the CL could lead to problems in the league which the Spurs can´t really afford given the competition for the Top 4, putting a higher focus on the EPL could lead to an early end in the CL, which could also discourage key players in staying longterm.

This is why we're signing more options like Wanyama, Janssen, and Nkodou - Adding players who can contribute while also adding young players who can continue developing the team.

Does anyone seriously think we're winning the CL this year? Why is that then used as a judgement?

This is a team chalk-full of sub 25 year olds, the judgement comes from whether they develop or not.

We're not signing 2 or 3 more "first teamers" so the proof will be in the pudding just like it always is. We heard all these same arguments about us last season.

 

[Sweech]

No you haven't.

Alli is the only player 'like Alli' who you've signed. No one else comes close to fitting that mould.

Kane and Dier are about the only academy players you've brought through who are worthy of mention in the last number of years.

Hell knows you try to milk those 3 for all they're worth though.

So somehow we have a squad full of young players that many deem as very talented, but we haven't signed them from elsewhere or brought them through the academy? I'm not sure what your vendetta is here.

 

[Kraftwerker]

So somehow we have a squad full of young players that many deem as very talented, but we haven't signed them from elsewhere or brought them through the academy? I'm not sure what your vendetta is here.

No vendetta. Just shutting down myths and bullshit.

The only young 'very talented' player in your team you've brought through the academy is Kane.

The only young 'very talented' player in your team who signed from elsewhere is Alli. And Dier at a push.

The rest of your team is pretty much all players in their mid-20s signed from other clubs i.e. regular signings. None are standout young talents in the mould of the above.

 

[Sweech]

No vendetta. Just shutting down myths and bullshit.

The only young 'very talented' player in your team you've brought through the academy is Kane.

The only young 'very talented' player in your team who signed from elsewhere is Alli. And Dier at a push.

The rest of your team is pretty much all players in their mid-20s signed from other clubs i.e. regular signings. None are standout young talents in the mould of the above.

So what is Christian Eriksen? Erik Lamela?

 

[roonster09]

Very true. Walker won it in 2011-12 ... and now he's developed in the one of the very best RBs in the Prem. Which is why he started for England ahead of Clyne and deserved to do so.

And? That doesn't add anything to the discussion that young player of the award is won the player who wasn't the best young player at that time.

My point makes perfect sense. Nor is it based on anything arbitrary - it's based on the same thing for both teams over the same time-frame ... because Pochettino arrived at the same time as LvG arrived at United.

I'm saying that the Spurs first XI is a much more settled unit, in contrast to that of United, which involves a much more chopped and changed mish-mash. This is clearly shown by the fact that eight of our first XI this coming season pre-dated the arrival of Poch, whilst only 3 (or 4 at a stretch) of United's first XI this coming season will pre-date LvG's arrival.

You say that "most of the Spurs players are not a properly planned signings, just a scatter gun approach". But in truth that would be a more accurate description of United's signings over the last 3 years - as the above statistic shows. It's United's first XI that's been endlessly chopped and changed, not that of Spurs.

Fair enough but how does it make any difference with how many players were from pre Van Gaal? ManUtd case was obvious, we tried to overhaul the whole squad and led by Van Gaal, so in this case this point doesn't add to anything.

Yes, Spurs transfer was scattergun approach and many of the players were under par before Poch arrival. Players like Lamela, Chadli and few others didn't perform well and rightly shown the door.

I agree that since Poch arrival it's more stable as he was good enough coach to bring the best out of existing players. But the transfers before that was just sign as many players as possible from Bale money.

 

[roonster09]

So somehow we have a squad full of young players that many deem as very talented, but we haven't signed them from elsewhere or brought them through the academy? I'm not sure what your vendetta is here.

Full of Young players?

Lloris - 29
Walker - 26
Rose - 26
Vertonghen - 29
Toby - 27

Dembele - 29
Dier - 22
Lamela - 24
Eriksen - 24

Alli - 20

Kane - 22

This is your first 11, where are those squad full of young players or brought through academy?

Alli was obvious standout but rest all standard punt on young players that every club do.

 

[Speak]

And? That doesn't add anything to the discussion that young player of the award is won the player who wasn't the best young player at that time.

The argument didn't stem from asking who was the best youngster.
The question was 'which young player had the best Premier League season?'

Most United fans wouldn't even entertain the idea that Alli was AS GOOD (not even 'better than', just 'as good') as martial last year.
Whether he's as good/promising/valuable is irrelevant. Just like whether Hazard is better than Willian is irrelevant when discussing their performance last season.

 

[roonster09]

The argument didn't stem from asking who was the best youngster.
The question was 'which young player had the best Premier League season?'

Most United fans wouldn't even entertain the idea that Alli was AS GOOD (not even 'better than', just 'as good') as martial last year.
Whether he's as good/promising/valuable is irrelevant. Just like whether Hazard is better than Willian is irrelevant when discussing their performance last season.

No, I didn't participate in that discussion. Forgot name (some Liverpool fan) said Alli was better because he won young player of the year to which I said the award is not worth that much considering the previous winner.

How Walker turned out doesn't negate the fact that he wasn't better than Aguero in 2010-11.

Re, which youngsters are better, couldn't care less. Some are biased and some make even more laughable posts to prove they aren't biased.

 

[BigDub]

Full of Young players?

Lloris - 29
Walker - 26
Rose - 26
Vertonghen - 29
Toby - 27

Dembele - 29
Dier - 22
Lamela - 24
Eriksen - 24

Alli - 20

Kane - 22

This is your first 11, where are those squad full of young players or brought through academy?

Alli was obvious standout but rest all standard punt on young players that every club do.

Out of curiosity, what would you define as a 'young player'? Under 18? Under 20? 22? 24?

Looking at the list you have there I'd say 5 of those players qualify as "young"(Kane, Alli, Dier, Eriksen, Lamela), with the rest firmly being in the prime of their careers age-wise.

As for your "full of young players?" question...Tottenham's PL squad last season had an average age of something like 24 years and 290 days, the youngest average age in the league. If Spurs don't have a squad full of young players then what team does? Again, I suppose it goes back to your definition of 'young player', but even so you either have to admit that Tottenham have a squad with a lot of young players or no team does.

 

[roonster09]

Out of curiosity, what would you define as a 'young player'? Under 18? Under 20? 22? 24?

Looking at the list you have there I'd say 5 of those players qualify as "young"(Kane, Alli, Dier, Eriksen, Lamela), with the rest firmly being in the prime of their careers age-wise.

As for your "full of young players?" question...Tottenham's PL squad last season had an average age of something like 24 years and 290 days, the youngest average age in the league. If Spurs don't have a squad full of young players then what team does? Again, I suppose it goes back to your definition of 'young player', but even so you either have to admit that Tottenham have a squad with a lot of young players or no team does.

Maybe each ones' definition is different but for me young player is U21 players. Obviously 24 year old players are also young players but there is a difference. When we signed Shaw was a young player but Herrera who was 24 at that time wasn't considered Young player.

You can have oldest squad but can still have better quality young players than the team with youngest average age. For example ManUtd also have many young players but players like Carrick, Ibra, Schweinteiger, Rooney adds more to the average. Team can have 1-2 quality U-20/U-21 players and rest of the squad spread out evenly from 24-28 years age which makes the average lesser.

I don't want to compare with ManUtd (I just gave example) but just because some team has youngest average doesn't mean the team has full of young quality players.

 

[Rafateria]

And here's @Rafateria suggesting Liverpool have a pretty damn good second XI and Spurs don't, when Spurs is probably just as good if not better.

I didn't suggest anything of the kind since I was not conversant with the full Spurs squad. I'm amazed you got that from my post on injuries and CL commitments but on reflection I guess I shouldn't be surprised and in fact you were actually rather prescient. What I actually said :

These two factors (squad depth and injuries) will be key this season, maybe even more so than previously with such competition in the PL and with Euro games for some. I don't consider Spurs as having great squad depth, I may be wrong the Spurs supporters can enlighten us. I know they are trying to address that.

It would be interesting to see what other people consider their clubs' '2nd team' here. Obviously debatable in many areas but for Liverpool I'd go :

Mignolet, Randall, Klavan, Sakho, Gomez (new LB obviously on the way so maybe Moreno, or the new guy, will drop in here), Henderson, Grujic, Stewart, Lallana, Firmino, Origi, Ings (pick 3 from the last 4 listed). I've ignored players expected to leave i.e. Benteke, Lucas etc.

However now that I've seen what their fans think the Spurs 2nd Team would be I honestly don't think their squad comes close to that of Liverpool and probably nowhere near those of United, City, Chelsea and Arsenal either. Spurs could struggle this season if they have the injuries that afflicted United, Liverpool and Arsenal last season or / and have a strong CL run. I've no idea how Glanville can think the below anywhere close to those of the above but then that's what opinions, no matter how wrong, are for I guess

------------------------ Vorm
Trippier - Carter-Vickers - Wimmer - Davies
--------------- Wanyama - Bentaleb
-----------Chadli ----- Son ---- N'Koudou
--------------------- Janssen

Sorry Glaston you can't have Dier in both 1st & 2nd teams !

 

[Sphaero]

Does anyone seriously think we're winning the CL this year? Why is that then used as a judgement?
.

No one in their rigtht mind would expect the Spurs to win the damn thing. There are only half a dozen clubs in total who can go into the competition with the realistic expectation of winning it.

For the rest of the clubs, there are multiple stages of success in the CL. For many clubs, including Tottenham, advancing from the group stages is already a big success and each and every round they survive on top of that builds on that success, especailly if they get past big teams in the process and prove their worth. I can only repeat what I said before: the CL is the biggest stage in club football. This is the ideal place for clubs to make a name for
themselves.

We're not signing 2 or 3 more "first teamers" so the proof will be in the pudding just like it always is. We heard all these same arguments about us last season.

So you expect all big English clubs to struggle again this season? I also don´t see how your last season counters my main argument, which is about the struggle to balance the CL with the EPL. Your last seasons team has proven to be unable to cope with high level International football. There is no greater proof for that than the kind of team you fielded in the Westfalenstadium last season, which got completely dominated without even putting up much of a fight and send home with a very flattering score line of 0-3 (it could have easily turned out be an even greater hammering).

The difference this season will be that you won´t meet these kind of teams in the Spring but rather in the Fall already.

 

[BigDub]

Maybe each ones' definition is different but for me young player is U21 players. Obviously 24 year old players are also young players but there is a difference. When we signed Shaw was a young player but Herrera who was 24 at that time wasn't considered Young player.

You can have oldest squad but can still have better quality young players than the team with youngest average age. For example ManUtd also have many young players but players like Carrick, Ibra, Schweinteiger, Rooney adds more to the average. Team can have 1-2 quality U-20/U-21 players and rest of the squad spread out evenly from 24-28 years age which makes the average lesser.

I don't want to compare with ManUtd (I just gave example) but just because some team has youngest average doesn't mean the team has full of young quality players.

Of course a team can have both good young players and good older players. I don't think that was ever the point being argued. You seemed make a more general claim, at least in the post I quoted, that Spurs' squad does not contain many young players. That's the point I was taking issue with, though again it depends on your definition of young. With your definition of needing to be under 21 I guess that leaves only Alli. Though by that definition then there aren't a whole lot of young players in any first team PL squad across the league.

 

[Glanville95]

I didn't suggest anything of the kind since I was not conversant with the full Spurs squad. I'm amazed you got that from my post on injuries and CL commitments but on reflection I guess I shouldn't be surprised and in fact you were actually rather prescient. What I actually said :

These two factors (squad depth and injuries) will be key this season, maybe even more so than previously with such competition in the PL and with Euro games for some. I don't consider Spurs as having great squad depth, I may be wrong the Spurs supporters can enlighten us. I know they are trying to address that.

It would be interesting to see what other people consider their clubs' '2nd team' here. Obviously debatable in many areas but for Liverpool I'd go :

Mignolet, Randall, Klavan, Sakho, Gomez (new LB obviously on the way so maybe Moreno, or the new guy, will drop in here), Henderson, Grujic, Stewart, Lallana, Firmino, Origi, Ings (pick 3 from the last 4 listed). I've ignored players expected to leave i.e. Benteke, Lucas etc.

However now that I've seen what their fans think the Spurs 2nd Team would be I honestly don't think their squad comes close to that of Liverpool and probably nowhere near those of United, City, Chelsea and Arsenal either. Spurs could struggle this season if they have the injuries that afflicted United, Liverpool and Arsenal last season or / and have a strong CL run. I've no idea how Glanville can think the below anywhere close to those of the above but then that's what opinions, no matter how wrong, are for I guess

------------------------ Vorm
Trippier - Carter-Vickers - Wimmer - Davies
--------------- Wanyama - Bentaleb
-----------Chadli ----- Son ---- N'Koudou
--------------------- Janssen

Sorry Glaston you can't have Dier in both 1st & 2nd teams !

It's not really an astounding claim to suggest Spurs squad is on an even keel with Liverpool. I mean there's little to really seperate the fullbacks - Trippier who impressed in his debut PL season at Burnley seems like a capable understudy to Walker and has more pedigree at this level than Randall, likewise with Davies to Gomez (though he is a talent).

Personally think Wanyama, Son and Janssen to be just as equal if not superior to some of their counterparts. I mean is there honestly much between Wanyama and Henderson of now? Origi's fairly decent but so is Janssen. Son is no worse to Ings or Lallana. It's very, very equal. There isn't a vast difference between the sides, but then bias dictates your opinion I suppose.

I mean you do realise your team contains two players who have suffered long-term injuries so we don't know just how well they'll fare at competitive level straight away, as well as Randall and Stewart who have minimal experience - just like Carter-Vickers before you mention him.

Wouldn't really say either side has impressive depth anyway TBH.

 

[roonster09]

Of course a team can have both good young players and good older players. I don't think that was ever the point being argued. You seemed make a more general claim, at least in the post I quoted, that Spurs' squad does not contain many young players. That's the point I was taking issue with, though again it depends on your definition of young. With your definition of needing to be under 21 I guess that leaves only Alli. Though by that definition then there aren't a whole lot of young players in any first team PL squad across the league.

Not necessarily first team.

Anyways not sure where this discussion is heading. I'm done. I just don't agree with many of the points made by few Spurs fan like their academy or not needing to improve their first 11.

 

[Kraftwerker]

So what is Christian Eriksen? Erik Lamela?

Players in their mid-20s signed from other clubs.

Both had an established reputation in other leagues before joining Spurs. To claim they're anything like an academy/youth signing is mental.