Ange in or out?

[Muttley]

I am not sure how you definitively know this about Spence. My view? The loans helped develop him into what we're now seeing. The Europa debacle? Agreed (club fault more than manager fault). Once again, another player that Conte not only didn't play, but actively distanced himself from when he signed.

As fans we don't have inside tracks. It's just my opinion, but have a feeling that Ange would have loved to have kept him around last season. The narratives at the time were about him being an arrogant lad with a bad attitude probably based on one comment from Warnock years ago. Numerically it didn't work because we had Porro and Emerson and no UEFA football. No way, Ange couldn't have seen what a technician of the ball Spence is. He just couldn't accommodate him. It's a shame that Ange didn't get to see him every day in training until this season. He won't look back now.

 

[glorygloryeze]

It's been constantly mentioned by those who know their youth football that the likes of Lankshesr and Dorrington are nowhere near ready for PL football. The 'just play the youngsters, they can't do any worse' comments just smack of armchair fans with a short sightedness that don't appreciate the reality of youngsters getting involved at PL level. Ange has played youngsters with the quality and suitable experience. That includes Moore who undoubtedly has the most hype from our youth setup, yet whilst you can see his potential he still looks a way off being truly ready.

Dorrington was thrown on for his debut at Southampton and within a minute had given the ball away and Soton scored, only for it to be luckily disallowed by VAR. It's not as simple as some on here like to think it is, regardless of situation and the long term consequences have to be considered. Hence why there's literally no coaches in the PL playing a load of youth team players with next to no men's football experience, it's not just an Ange thing....

Those are all fair points and in any other year probably wouldn't be an issue in or of itself.

However, IIRC there were lots of club PR in the summer that used "not wanting to block the path of our great youngsters" as a reason for why our transfer window was so relatively 'minimalist'. Lankshear for one was talked up as being ready or on the verge of the first team.

So for me, the fact Ange hasn't used them much is showing that they are not indeed really ready and that he wasn't really backed in the summer in a way that would lead one to believe that we were aiming to push on from a 5th place finish...oh well..

 

[Muttley]

Interested to hear what your methodology would've been. And I'm not sure there's anything too interesting other than that Mikey Moore is a rare talent, and the likes of Scarlett, Donley, and Devine were developing on loan. Youth football is fine margins. Look at Tyrese Hall, a gifted and lovely to watch player but who apparently is considered to not have enough zip/pep/dynamism in his play.

My methodology is based on the following:

Firstly, the human body is under way more trauma in the latter stages of the game versus the start and the middle. We had also established a trend even with a fit squad that Ange makes more subs from winning positions than losing ones. That was completely skewed by 2 of your forwards, Richi and Odo, getting early season injuries. We were chasing games with very tired bodies up front. We also lost Moore for 2 months.

Secondly, we've not really had a midfield crisis as bad as the other 2 main positions all season. Also, our 4 go-to midfielders were out on loan. Devine, Donley, Craig and Abbott. So we didn't really have so much choice in midfield. You could say the same with Phillips perhaps as well. Would he have been useful? Probably, but he's having a great loan experience.

So our options to use younger players at the club probably came down to Lanks, Olusesi and Ajayi in the 2 month period Moore was out. Then all 4 of them after. It could have only have been in the wider channels and up front and it could have only been at the end of games. It would have just been a slightly different strategy to only using a couple of senior subs and leaving them on the bench.

I also don't know enough about Hall yet. I thought he was centre mid in pre-season, but I've seen his name further up the pitch in some U21 line-ups. Has he been used as a striker or wide forward? I know there is a Tye Hall as well so I could be getting confused.

 

[harr1984]

Those are all fair points and in any other year probably wouldn't be an issue in or of itself.

However, IIRC there were lots of club PR in the summer that used "not wanting to block the path of our great youngsters" as a reason for why our transfer window was so relatively 'minimalist'. Lankshear for one was talked up as being ready or on the verge of the first team.

So for me, the fact Ange hasn't used them much is showing that they are not indeed really ready and that he wasn't really backed in the summer in a way that would lead one to believe that we were aiming to push on from a 5th place finish...oh well..

Who was talking up Lankshear to be ready for the first team? I've only seen it from a few on here, but those who actually watch youth football say he needs a loan (I hold no particular opinion, never watch that level of football). I agree there was a line about developing the younger players, which I think we have seen - I don't believe it was being specific to our home grown/youth setup? For what I can see we are geared to the long term, those with mens football experience AND the quality have played a fair bit eg Gray/Bergvall/Sarr/Udogie/Odobert/Kinksy (all 22 or under) plus Moore who didn't have the experience but considered an exceptional talent that should be blooded.

Those who haven't got mens football experience but are very talented have been loaned out to get such experience and this is all geared to the long term because blooding a load of young players without mens football experience is a recipe for disaster. And Ange recognised he was to build something for the long term involving the youth which meant he would have to experience some short term pain - he wasn't going to be backed in terms of getting ready made stars in every position, and here we are. There was no set rules in place by saying we will give a pathway for youngsters that meant immediately they was all going to get game time. More so a scenario of go out on loan and show us you can play mens football, if you're good enough you will be integrated into the squad in the short/mid term.....

 

[Muttley]

I think we're not that far and @Bullet's post has it in a nutshell. Being a manager at a club like Spurs (also) means working with resources available. If you want to send a player to Coventry (figuratively or literally), it's fine so long as you get the results, but don't be surprised if some people start asking questions when things go South. Likewise, I don't see how you can complain about players' fatigue when you don't use every tool at your disposal.

I can perfectly understand why people don't rate Reguillon, for instance. But honestly, the worst he could have done is being useless on the pitch. If we have a look at the match threads from the past couple of months, I've got a feeling he wouldn't be the only one. So, yes, sometimes, you have to use stop-gap solutions. Sometimes, you have to play someone who has no future at the club. It's nice to have grand plans and ideals, but you also have to manage the actual situations. If you won't, write a book instead.

I do agree with your comment about making sure your decisions are vindicated in what happens next. It's why the manager gets paid the big bucks. As you can see, I'm definitely not one of these that just assumes that because the manager says or does something it must be true. After all, we are just mere fans and he is top dog. I think it's OK to discuss and challenge these areas.

 

[billyiddo]

The point with Regulion is that he is a body that can be used - you can't point at the minutes some players have played and say there was no other option when there was, same with Solanke/Lankshere. I think the only real backs to the wall no other option available has been Gray when filling in at CB recently.

 

[Mcfee]

You can always do more but to be fair to Ange we have given a lot of the younger players significant time on the pitch - even if it’s out of necessity. And I would say that’s one reason why there isn’t an even bigger groundswell of opinion against him. Playing the youngsters is a smart move by any manager who wants to buy a bit of time - it goes down well with supporters. Even Poch did it to an extent in the early days.

 

[Mr Gogolak]

It's been constantly mentioned by those who know their youth football that the likes of Lankshesr and Dorrington are nowhere near ready for PL football. The 'just play the youngsters, they can't do any worse' comments just smack of armchair fans with a short sightedness that don't appreciate the reality of youngsters getting involved at PL level. Ange has played youngsters with the quality and suitable experience. That includes Moore who undoubtedly has the most hype from our youth setup, yet whilst you can see his potential he still looks a way off being truly ready.

Dorrington was thrown on for his debut at Southampton and within a minute had given the ball away and Soton scored, only for it to be luckily disallowed by VAR. It's not as simple as some on here like to think it is, regardless of situation and the long term consequences have to be considered. Hence why there's literally no coaches in the PL playing a load of youth team players with next to no men's football experience, it's not just an Ange thing....

Who are they? All the people I've talked to about it (coaches in Croatia and France) and a few international youth team managers, the most famous of which is Jose Pekerman, said there is absolutely no way of knowing how far a good prospect can go and how good they will be once they play first team football. The world is full of so-called 'wonderkids' who never made it but there's also a lot of players who didn't make it in academies and who worked their way up the football ladders later on.

The only difference I'm willing to make is that the Premier League is a very different beast as its demands are unlike anything you find elsewhere in Europe. If Lankshear was so far off first team football, then why use him at all? Why play some of these young players against Elfsborg but not Tamworth, for instance? It's not about making them first-team regulars; just using them in an injury crisis.

Quite frankly, from my (admittedly, limited) experience, the above is a bold statement and making this an absolute truth (basically, if you disagree, you don't know what you're talking about) seems a stretch to me.

 

[billyiddo]

Who are they? All the people I've talked to about it (coaches in Croatia and France) and a few international youth team managers, the most famous of which is Jose Pekerman, said there is absolutely no way of knowing how far a good prospect can go and how good they will be once they play first team football. The world is full of so-called 'wonderkids' who never made it but there's also a lot of players who didn't make it in academies and who worked their way up the football ladders later on.

The only difference I'm willing to make is that the Premier League is a very different beast as its demands are unlike anything you find elsewhere in Europe. If Lankshear was so far off first team football, then why use him at all? Why play some of these young players against Elfsborg but not Tamworth, for instance? It's not about making them first-team regulars; just using them in an injury crisis.

Quite frankly, from my (admittedly, limited) experience, the above is a bold statement and making this an absolute truth (basically, if you disagree, you don't know what you're talking about) seems a stretch to me.

For me it's less about the players in question and more about the protection of first team players during an abnormal injury situation.

 

[harr1984]

Who are they? All the people I've talked to about it (coaches in Croatia and France) and a few international youth team managers, the most famous of which is Jose Pekerman, said there is absolutely no way of knowing how far a good prospect can go and how good they will be once they play first team football. The world is full of so-called 'wonderkids' who never made it but there's also a lot of players who didn't make it in academies and who worked their way up the football ladders later on.

The only difference I'm willing to make is that the Premier League is a very different beast as its demands are unlike anything you find elsewhere in Europe. If Lankshear was so far off first team football, then why use him at all? Why play some of these young players against Elfsborg but not Tamworth, for instance? It's not about making them first-team regulars; just using them in an injury crisis.

Quite frankly, from my (admittedly, limited) experience, the above is a bold statement and making this an absolute truth (basically, if you disagree, you don't know what you're talking about) seems a stretch to me.

Lankshear was only used because there were times where he had to be due to numbers. He is now fighting to even start a game for West Brom. Not sure what more we should be expecting from him at this stage? If he can become a proven Championship striker then that would be fantastic, right now he is even way off that. I wasn't talking in absolutes at all, I literally said I don't know as I don't watch that level of football - but I certainly don't subscribe to the 'just chuck them in the first team, can't be any worse' phalanx when there is far more elements to consider when it comes to a young player....

 

[Muttley]

For me it's less about the players in question and more about the protection of first team players during an abnormal injury situation.

For me, it's both.

I think there are the attributes that you measure an academy player for before introducing them into the first team. Mentality is one, physicality is another and obviously this is underpinned with the technical qualities. Then you throw in the tactical system that the kid needs to learn from the 1st team manager. Perhaps current form comes into it as well.

So when a 1st team crisis comes along, you really have to compromise on some of these assessment areas. If you continue having the same thresholds as normal times then your first team could become sub-optimal. The entire model has to move together.

 

[harr1984]

For me it's less about the players in question and more about the protection of first team players during an abnormal injury situation.

Of course, but this has to be weighed up versus the protection of young players from both a physical and mental perspective - things none of us can possibly know, and only speculate about....

 

[Mr Gogolak]

Lankshear was only used because there were times where he had to be due to numbers. He is now fighting to even start a game for West Brom. Not sure what more we should be expecting from him at this stage? If he can become a proven Championship striker then that would be fantastic, right now he is even way off that. I wasn't talking in absolutes at all, I literally said I don't know as I don't watch that level of football - but I certainly don't subscribe to the 'just chuck them in the first team, can't be any worse' phalanx when there is far more elements to consider when it comes to a young player....

Sorry, I misunderstood the 'people who know their youth football' part! At this point, I think it's worth remembering two things (even for my own sake!):

a) Despite the globalization, different football cultures continue to coexist. In some places, there's a very scientific take on football while in other territories (in Africa for instance, but also in Croatia), people hang on to a more empirical approach.
b) Writing in a language that isn't your own can lead to a lot of misunderstanding. Basically, I'm the lowest form of fan: I go to the games once in a blue moon, I buy a shirt every now and then and I watch all the games. I'd be very surprised if anyone at the club still cared about message boards in 2025. I could threaten to set myself on fire if Postecoglou isn't sacked tomorrow and absolutely nothing in the world would change. So, I'm just here to enjoy reading different point of view, sometimes give my two pence, but certainly not to impose anything on anyone. In other words, I don't need to be 'proven right' or to 'win' an argument. It's all about the fun of reading contrasting opinions.

Now, having said all that, Harry Kane was fighting to get a game at Norwich until Sherwood 'just chucked him in the first team'...

 

[braineclipse]

Err...he has played Reguillon. And define 'every tool'...I'd say using Reguillon is absolutely using the bottom end of the 'tool' drawer. And before the leap to defend him comes, how has he managed to avoid being selected by two or three managers in a row? Could it possiblt be because he isn't showing up in training well enough? Repeatedly? Again, I hear this 'should've used squad more' a lot, well who should he have been using that he hasn't?

Ange hasn't used every tool.

He's far from the only manager that applies to, I think it applies to just about every manager in different circumstances.

He probably has his reasons, reasons more or less unknown to us. It's very easy from the outside to call that out, but not knowing the reasoning behind it I think at the very least some caution in calling that out is warranted.

 

[Welshspur60]

Was watching the Merseyside derby last night and couldn’t help but admire the way Everton made life really difficult for Liverpool. Granted it was the last derby at Goodison, but they turned the game into a fight, a battle, a scrap. Why don’t we ever do that when we play our rivals? Do we think it’s beneath us? Saudi Sportswashing Machine wound up the gooners something chronic in the league cup, Trippier in particular. Not only are we one of the easiest teams in the league to get at and play against because we give so many chances away, we rarely make life hard for the opposition.

Yes massively different to us. We are just passive and weak with no leaders, no battlers and set up terribly every game now. Ange cant use the injuries to mask the fact we dont even fight.

 

[harr1984]

Sorry, I misunderstood the 'people who know their youth football' part! At this point, I think it's worth remembering two things (even for my own sake!):

a) Despite the globalization, different football cultures continue to coexist. In some places, there's a very scientific take on football while in other territories (in Africa for instance, but also in Croatia), people hang on to a more empirical approach.
b) Writing in a language that isn't your own can lead to a lot of misunderstanding. Basically, I'm the lowest form of fan: I go to the games once in a blue moon, I buy a shirt every now and then and I watch all the games. I'd be very surprised if anyone at the club still cared about message boards in 2025. I could threaten to set myself on fire if Postecoglou isn't sacked tomorrow and absolutely nothing in the world would change. So, I'm just here to enjoy reading different point of view, sometimes give my two pence, but certainly not to impose anything on anyone. In other words, I don't need to be 'proven right' or to 'win' an argument. It's all about the fun of reading contrasting opinions.

Now, having said all that, Harry Kane was fighting to get a game at Norwich until Sherwood 'just chucked him in the first team'...

No sorry to clarify I meant those who watch our youth level football and seem to have an understanding of this level in general and post about it on here and elsewhere, I personally have no idea so do pay attention to their analysis. I don't think there's an argument to be had here, because none of us have the required information about our young players. My only opinion is that there are far more elements to be considered on when to play a young player, especially when the team is going through a tough period - rather than he's got some talent, we are struggling with injuries, can't hurt to thrown him in. I don't know what is right or wrong, only that it's not as simple an equation as some seem to think it is.....

 

[El Dante]

Him standing on Fabregas’s hand and then feigning innocence remains in my Top 5 footballing moments of all-time.

Right up there with Dembele going straight through Sergio Ramos Dembele my favourite ever Spurs player, not one of the usual big names but loved the way that he played. How he carried the ball and could hold off opponents comfortably. How we could do with a player like him now.

 

[harr1984]

Right up there with Dembele going straight through Sergio Ramos Dembele my favourite ever Spurs player, not one of the usual big names but loved the way that he played. How he carried the ball and could hold off opponents comfortably. How we could do with a player like him now.

I only remembered the Eric Dier tackle when playing for England

But then did find this too:

 

[metalgear]

It's a rhethorical question. As for the youngsters, there are basically two philosophies: some people think they should be introduced sparingly and only when the team is doing well; others believe that if you're good enough, you're old enough. From my point of view, giving more minutes to younger players would have been beneficial for all parties.

Now, if you're talking about the results themselves, I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't possibly have been worse.

But let's look at it differently: I keep hearing that our poor results and performances are due to fatigue and a lack of rotation. How could rotating the players - event if that means losing a few games we lost anyway - make the situation any worse? You really think we'be in the relegation zone if Reguilon or Lankshear had played half a dozen more games?

To me the decision is between keeping older players fresh vs readiness of young players.

Till today I am not sure if ange can make the correct judgement on either. It seems like he sticks to his established players until forced to.

 

[Bishop]

Answers below...



Ange played him more than Nuno, Mason, and Conte. He is not up to it for us IMO.

This has become quite the myth. That's keeps being repeated despite it being factually wrong. He played every game for Nuno apart from the final defeat to United. He also played every single game under Mason other than the Emirates Marketing Project match. So the only coach who hasn't played Reggy is actually Conte and that was for obvious reasons. He's not a WB.

I am not sure how you definitively know this about Spence. My view? The loans helped develop him into what we're now seeing. The Europa debacle? Agreed (club fault more than manager fault). Once again, another player that Conte not only didn't play, but actively distanced himself from when he signed.

Spence could have played earlier, even if just to give some resting time to Porro. It seems very clear to me that he only got the minutes in the end due to injuries, Ange's own recent words corroborate that.