Bit of an ugly view on our youth progress model (pretty much blames Poch)
https://windycoys.com/2019/10/guest-blog-youth-special/
In my opinion there is a lot of misplaced negativity about Spurs’ academy at the moment; people talk about it as though it is not doing its job. Fans are looking over at Arsenal and Chelsea, seeing the players they are bringing through, and are starting to feel envious, placing the blame at the door of our academy. But, for my money, the players and staff in the actual ‘academy’ are doing everything right and have not really let up over the past few years.
Instead, our youth development is suffering for having a system that does not allow our players to develop post-19; other clubs take our players, and the academy faces criticism when the academy has actually completed its role in the development process (i.e. it ends at 18).
The main issue rests with whomever controls the loans and first team integration. We are feeling the effects of not developing our best talents, as we are now starting to lose players or are unable to recruit at Under-14/Under-15 level; the result of which is that we lack depth in some age groups.
Take as an example England’s golden age group: the 2000-borns. England got to the semi-finals of the European Championships at Under-17 level and then won the World Cup. In that age group alone Spurs had multiple call-ups along the way. That group of players was one of the best England has ever produced and, therefore, it feels reasonable to say — given the fact that we are an elite academic and had so many players involved — that it was also one of the best groups that Spurs had produced. When our 2000-borns were 17/18, we had as many talented players as Emirates Marketing Project, as Chelsea and arguably more talented players than Arsenal. But if we look at the players from that age group we will see where the development fell away.
He goes on for a while with specific examples
I took a look at the list of specific examples and I don't really get it. The players that he lists are only 18/19 years old?....
Tashan Oakley-Boothe. Is 19, a regular with the under 23 team and has trained with the first team. His development is fine so far. A loan might be sensible now, but he would probably struggle to force his way into the team in Championship or League 1 level so would mainly just be training with their first team and on the bench/covering injuries.
Skipp. Got into the senior set-up and did do enough to get a few chances despite his young age. I think he is now at the right level for a loan (IMO he was too young previously and would've got swallowed up). I'm not sure he quite has that little extra that is required to play at our level, but he should have enough to make a career in football either at Championship or lower PL level.
Nya Kirby. Spurs cannot be blamed for this one. His advisors should be. He went for the offer of money, simple as that. Chelsea had tapped him up and we'd caught them red handed, with them ending up not taking him because they knew they would be looking at more in terms of fines/transfer bans had they followed through on that. The player was badly advised. Should've stayed at Spurs where he had a decent chance of making it.
TJ Eyoma. He is still only 19 years old and has been fine playing at the younger level. He is now at the right sort of age for a loan move. Loaning him out earlier is likely to have been too soon with him being too young. Might even benefit from another year here before he goes on loan.
Reo Griffiths. I not sure I saw anything him that suggested he would be good enough for Spurs. I think it is often fairer to the younger players to let them go in this case rather than keeping them around and constantly loaning them out 'just in case'. I don't think he will make it as a PL footballer. Might have a career in the lower leagues.
Brooklyn Lyons-Foster. Not quite sure how the author can be saying that this player is being allowed to stagnate. The player is only 18 years old and went away on the pre season tour to Asia with the first team? I think him playing for the under 23s this season and getting a loan next season would be the best thing for his development.
Tariq Hinds. Another 19 year old in our under 23s. I'm not sure the author's expectations for these players is realistic enough.
The author then goes on to list other players.... Keanan Bennetts, Sam Shashoua, Jaden Brown, Jon Dinzeyi and Japhet Tanganga
Saying that they haven't kicked on because they didn't get loans, then lists Marcus Edwards, Josh Onomah and Kyle Walker-Peters as further examples.... despite the fact that two of those three players were considered to be the most talented of the bunch and DID get loans and yet they actually achieved a lower level than KWP who didn't go out on loan?
Of that list of 20 year olds I think Bennetts and Tananga are the most likely to make it and Tananga got minutes in pre-season and in the League Cup. It wouldn't surprise me to see him go out on loan in Jan, which I think is the right time for him.
The truth of the matter is that very few academy players come through to become first team players at any top club. If you managed to bring through one every two or three years then you would be doing very well. I do feel that some of our players would benefit from good loans right now (Skipp and KWP for example, with it being my opinion that the latter should've been out on loan to the Championship last season, which could've been the finishing school for him to become our right back this season). However I'm not sure that any of the others would yet necessarily benefit. It's a fine line between giving a player more experience and setting their development back. The player has to be at a club that plays the right way and have at least a 50% chance of winning a place in the team IMO).
