Joshua Onomah

[sammyspurs]

I genuinely can’t remember what he did or didn’t offer anymore.

 

[Alli-Luya]

Good luck at Fulham. Didn't take his chance to impress the gaffer when he was given it, but should do ok in the Championship i reckon.

 

[sudoku]

Can't remember the game but Josh had a good chance to score with a header a yard out. He missed. It was like the Sterling chance v 'Pool.

Hope he takes his chance. Maybe his last.

 

[Perryman]

Great post.
Good point about Parker actually knowing Josh.
There is something there.

While I acknowledge that Scott will know of him, he was only a coach at spurs for one year while Onomah on loan. He left as a player when Josh was 16. No doubt he will have spoken to McDermott about Josh. No doubt there is a footballer in there. Good luck to him.

 

[Zest]

Fulham, Forrest, Brentford and Millwall are all form teams, compared to the top 2.

He has every chance of being a Prem player next season, would be gutting if he flourishes with just a season away.

 

[imitationleather]

Should be moved as he’s no longer our player.
My view of him never changed, I remember seeing on the lineup in Dortmund away with 50 of us saying wtf outside the stadium. Never got his position, never saw anything there.

I’m willing to go 1:7against anyone, Onomah is not going to be a top footballer

Championship always looked his level, and he appears to have found it. Still not bad at all to have a career there, but I don't know why we persisted with him (playing him in some really important matches as well) when it was blindingly obvious he was not good enough for us.

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

Only point I'd make is that other than Winks none of the other academy players came through in 6 years.

I just don't believe that none of the others had the right skills and mental state.

Players like Oakley-Boothe and Eyoma, both winners of u17 WC were on different preseasons, played well in preseason and then trained for a year with Poch. Both had next to no first team appearances (circa 4 minutes each) and were not allowed to play u23 games, restarted next season in u23's both looking much poorer players than they were a year before. KWP not playing u23 games for 4 years and looked better as a 18 or 19 year old than a 22 year old after 4 years first team training,,,,,,

Onomah, not much different. Loads of appearances, but actually only a few minutes - virtually all played out of position. Not much different to judging CF Harry Kane by judging him by playing him as GK Harry Kane (ok slight exageration to make the point)

Or the alternative, Tanganga called up regularly for E youth coinciding with pre-season so played 30 mins or so v Girona in preseason 2018 but Poch missed him until pre season 2019 when in 4 games he looked very very good against some very good players like Ronaldo. Played in that abomination of a match v Colchester but nothing more until Jose picked him v Liverpool where he remindee everyone of the youngster who played in pre-season 2019.

Poch seemed to be an excellent coach and can claim the bragging rights for lots of semi established players (ie players who had already broken through to first team) such as Kane being greatly improved.

But with academy players aged 18-21, Poch seemed to screw up everyone of them, other than Winks. The idea of not playing any football for a year whilst training with the first team just killed them all. Just don't but the idea it was co0incidence, think it was just bad management of the players development

Really, really hard to see what was planned for them, what he was working towards. Did Poch feel comfortable at the Club with Levy saying he wanted him to be our manager for the next 20yrs or whatever it was he said? Did this mean that he was doing some serious log term planning with those players??

Maybe he had genuine plans for all of them to get into the first team and this was how we wanted to bring them through??? Or as you say he got it all terribly wrong by doing this. We will never know as he's not here.

I said it a few times now he's yet to have any of the players that have left Spurs to prove he was wrong, for me until Edwards, Onomah, CCV, KWP, Velijovic, Oakly-Booth, etc... start to tare it up in a top club in a top league then so far he's got it right. (BTW every single one of those lads I listed I tipped for big things AT SPURS, I thought they were all fantastic and my view is I want them to have massive careers. I never got to see Pritchard kick a ball other than for the odd Norwich and WBA game but never quite got the hype on those fleeting moments).

I'm not saying he's right or wrong, just saying until just one of these lads turns it on then he's got it right. If these lads are right for us then why aren't we buying them back? Edwards & Onomah certainly wouldn't break the bank.

What do you think of Mcdermott? Where is he in all of this?

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

Mc Dermott seems to be silent, at least in public, maybe he doesn't think it appropriate to comment in public. As he has been at Spurs since about 2005, I would hope that he is senior enough to meet with DL from time to time and report that although the academy produces kids up to age of 18, too many do not get developed from there - but I do not know that.

I doubt if we will ever buy the kids back - the only time we ever have done as Peter Crouch to get an HG striker. As I understand it he was 'given' to Gerry Francis in lieu of a pay off when he was sacked as manager but with a sell on clause - unfortunately the club Francis took Crouch went bust invalidating the sell on clause so we never profited from Crouch's career.

In general terms if a player's development is screwed up between the ages of 18-21 sometimes they never recover or it takes years tp do so - look at Adam Smith for example whose development was screwed up at Spurs, took him maybe 5 years before he recovered to being a very decent RB at PL side Bournemouth. But he had been one of the best in E u21 sides alongside Daniel Sturridge whilst at Spurs.

Decent shout on Smith but not entirely sure if his team hadn’t has been promoted. I’ve always liked him (that whole class of his were always a likeable bunch and of a high standard too) but is he a top RB? I really don’t think he his.

As head of our academy McDermott is responsible for the development of our academy players.

Non of us know if he agreed or disagreed with the decisions made the last 5 years, seeing as he’s still here dispute significant interest from big rival Clubs (namely Utd) it’s a fair assumption to make that he was happy in his role and how things were at the club and his relationship with Poch. (Publicly they were often seen together).

 

[Spursidol]

Decent shout on Smith but not entirely sure if his team hadn’t has been promoted. I’ve always liked him (that whole class of his were always a likeable bunch and of a high standard too) but is he a top RB? I really don’t think he his.

As head of our academy McDermott is responsible for the development of our academy players.

Non of us know if he agreed or disagreed with the decisions made the last 5 years, seeing as he’s still here dispute significant interest from big rival Clubs (namely Utd) it’s a fair assumption to make that he was happy in his role and how things were at the club and his relationship with Poch. (Publicly they were often seen together).
[/QUOTE. ]

McDermott has never been disparaging about any of the managers he's seen -and they go from Jol, Ramos, Redknapp, AVB, Sherwood, Poch, Mourhino - so he's seen the full range of managers, some of whom did good things for youth, some ignored youth and some we don't know. Some he may have started off liking and then got to disliking and vice versa, we really don't know. In some ways the ultimate corporate man.

My point on Adam Smith is looked a real top prospect both at Spurs and England u21's, was not well developed at Spurs who then bought Waller and Naughton which must have been a kick in the teeth for him, joined Bournemouth then in Championship and today plays in a PL team. When injured Bournemouth brought in Clyne (Liverpool former England fullback) on loan, but he regained his place after injury and Clyne sent back to Liverpoool. So I think its fair to say he's a decent PL level footballer - but maybe he would have been even better had he been fully developed at Spurs and Spurs hadn't bought Naughton (not a good PL level player) and Walker - we'll never know his full potential or whether he reached it at Bournemouth.

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

Yes, I get the point you were trying to make about Smith.

Thing is it’s not just Spurs. Who’s come through at City? Chealsea? (And of course I’m talking about pre-transfer ban) Woolwich? Liverpool? United have a few but is that also why they are shit?

 

[Spursidol]

Yes, I get the point you were trying to make about Smith.

Thing is it’s not just Spurs. Who’s come through at City? Chealsea? (And of course I’m talking about pre-transfer ban) Woolwich? Liverpool? United have a few but is that also why they are shit?

ManU are shit through bad buying - both overspending but also bad choices. Despite his reputation, Mourhino did a decent job of helping bring through academy players Marcus Rashford and Scott McTominay and now Solskjaer is bringing through Mason Greenwood - all 3 players will be big for them over the next few years.

ManCity just have tooo much money - which is why Jadon Sancho went to Dortmund as he saw no possibility of getting a game and Phil Foden despite looking a better player at times than some of the high cost imports, he hardly gets any minutes. So great academy through paying top dollar wages to all the youngsters, but no development path from 18-21, they just buy players for instant success. And they don't look like a good 2nd in the table despite spending a billion on players.

Chelsea the same as Mancity - until they hired Lampard after doing an ok job at Derby, but not sure why and whether transfer ban was the only reason. Either way he's proved Chelsea do have a decent academy with is it 7 players he's given debuts to this season ?

Woolwich will need to utilise their academy more as they don't have the money to compete in buying players. Be interesting to see how that works out.

Liverpool brought through TAA - old story of getting injuries, gave TAA a chance and he's never looked back. But Liverpool (sadly) hired 2 Spurs old boys who went as past Spurs managers didn't like DoF's and analytics and over the last 6+ years have been fantastically successful at buying players (except TAA at RB, was mainly a midfielder in their academy.

So in summary, all the big clubs tend to buy for instant success rather than develop players (except ManU who both buy and develop and Woolwich who I think will follow that model, and will Chelsea continue to bring through youngsters after Lampard goes ?) - your point I imagine ?

 

[Spursidol]

The point is clear. All teams competing at the top end of the table largely do not bring through youth. The one team that has Utd is the worst performing of all.

Woolwich have only brought through Belerin and Ramsey successfully and given their drop in relative terms on the financial position they are looking to do what we did 5/6 years ago.

This is the reality of football. There really are very few teams that utilise their academies and when they do they get plundered. Everton has an excellent academy yet still spends heavily.

You know that I’m largely playing devil’s advocate here but there’s more evidence to support that we’re probably better than most of our rivals or at least no different.

But Spurs are at our worst period for years in bringing youngsters through

And at the same time- we've bought a number of squad fillers - places which could be filled by some academy graduates, some of whom might become real stars, but a number will be here for a few years before moving on.

Look back to the ManU glory days under Fergie - a handful of the squad were the likes of John O'Shea not great players but good enough playing alongside real stars. Saved a ton of money by not buying the squad fillers too - so more money to buy more of the stars we want like Lo Celso......and we might get another Harry Kane every 5 or 10 years as well as squad fillers.

So time to go back to trying to bring through one youngster a year - some will stay for a few years before moving on as they are not good enough (we made over £100m in the few years before Poch and first year or so of Poch_ which is handy to add to the transfer pot) , others will stay because they are good emough.

All I'm advocating is pursuing both a spending strategy alongside a development of academy graduate strategy. Always better to pursue more than one strategy when they don't conflict

 

[tbonepremier]

ManU are shit through bad buying - both overspending but also bad choices. Despite his reputation, Mourhino did a decent job of helping bring through academy players Marcus Rashford and Scott McTominay and now Solskjaer is bringing through Mason Greenwood - all 3 players will be big for them over the next few years.

ManCity just have tooo much money - which is why Jadon Sancho went to Dortmund as he saw no possibility of getting a game and Phil Foden despite looking a better player at times than some of the high cost imports, he hardly gets any minutes. So great academy through paying top dollar wages to all the youngsters, but no development path from 18-21, they just buy players for instant success. And they don't look like a good 2nd in the table despite spending a billion on players.

Chelsea the same as Mancity - until they hired Lampard after doing an ok job at Derby, but not sure why and whether transfer ban was the only reason. Either way he's proved Chelsea do have a decent academy with is it 7 players he's given debuts to this season ?

Woolwich will need to utilise their academy more as they don't have the money to compete in buying players. Be interesting to see how that works out.

Liverpool brought through TAA - old story of getting injuries, gave TAA a chance and he's never looked back. But Liverpool (sadly) hired 2 Spurs old boys who went as past Spurs managers didn't like DoF's and analytics and over the last 6+ years have been fantastically successful at buying players (except TAA at RB, was mainly a midfielder in their academy.

So in summary, all the big clubs tend to buy for instant success rather than develop players (except ManU who both buy and develop and Woolwich who I think will follow that model, and will Chelsea continue to bring through youngsters after Lampard goes ?) - your point I imagine ?

I think the biggest clubs know very well by now that it's close to impossible to develop a youngster for the top level at the very best clubs. They have to try though, because of the HG rule.

The HG rule is both a blessing and a curse for young, ambitious footballers.

It is a blessing because the big clubs will spend a fortune giving their talents fantastic facilities, follow-up and training. And the hottest of hot prospects will be able to make a fortune despite not really reaching the level necessary to i prove their clubs.

It is a curse because young, talented players who have reached a point where they need regular game time to keep improving, will be retained at their clubs to fill the squad and sit on the stands and decline as footballers instead of improving. Too many of the world's most talented youngster are withering away in clubs that are just too big for them.

Hopefully, more youngster will look to Sancho and the success he's had following his move to Dortmund.

 

[Spursidol]

You're missing the point that today the EPL is so competitive playing a youngster will likely shatter his confidence and cost points, the step up from under 23's to EPL is simply massive. When the difference between success and failure is so tight managers would be fools, or insanely brave, to risk it. When forced to play youngsters due to injuries or fixture pile-ups most top clubs suffer ... that's reality.

The number of under 21's with over ten starts in the big six is just one Guendozi 20 with 16 starts at Woolwich

If you move to under 23's then City have Jesus 22 (12 starts) Liverpool have TAA 21 (22 starts) Chelsea have Mount 21 (21 starts) Abraham 22 (22 starts) Pulisic 21 (12 starts) Woolwich have Guendozi 20 (16 starts) man Utd have James 22 (21 starts) Rashford 22 (22 starts) and Bissaka 22 (21 starts) we had nobody under 23 as a regular starter under Poch .... now we have Ryan, Gedson, Tanganga but that's pretty much been forced by injuries.

So that's just nine semi-regular starters under 23 from the big six teams ... experience is vital.

If you look at the teams forced to play young players Woolwich / Man Utd even Chelsea just how are they doing?

I get this 100% and have said similar myself.

BUT a “squad filler” is only a “squad filler” if they turn out to be shit. They could have turn out really well. It’s also quite subjective. I thought Tripp’s was a terrible footballer and blocked the path of KWP, others who I’ve argued relentlessly on here would say he was a success and I’m not talking about earning £20m on his sale. N’kudo could have turned into a developed into a good player, had he done so he wouldn't be in the ”squad filler” category.

You’ve chosen Lo Celso, but surely he’s now in the way of Oakley-Booth?? If he fails at Spurs he too would be labelled a squad filler. Having Eriksen in the team surely meant that’s way Pritchard didn’t make it. The list is endless and highly subjective.

It’s also further complicated buy the financial aims and planning of the club. On one hand Levy’s a tight fisted bald bastard, then spunks money buying

So if I take everything you have written is 100% correct that Japhet Tanganga has not played for Spurs first team this season.

Or that Oliver Skipp didn't play last season.

And in both cases Spurs fans were very accepting of the youngsters performances, and equally some errors (although its worth saying that experienced players costing multi millions of pounds also make mistakes in matches )

I'm not saying its easy to juggle time in the first team, and elsewhere would suggest we make better use of the loan system to give youngsters more first team experience to minimise the jump from u23 youth football to Spurs first team but it is clearly not an insurmountable gap - and maybe Tanganga's 5 matches for u23's v League 1 and League 2 sides in the EFL trophy helps bridge that gap a little.

As I say I think its an essential piece of squad management to both buy players and develop your own in parallel - and makes good financial sense as well as the need to fill some of the squad with Club trained and HG players..

 

[BangkokSpud]

So if I take everything you have written is 100% correct that Japhet Tanganga has not played for Spurs first team this season.

Or that Oliver Skipp didn't play last season.

And in both cases Spurs fans were very accepting of the youngsters performances, and equally some errors (although its worth saying that experienced players costing multi millions of pounds also make mistakes in matches )

I'm not saying its easy to juggle time in the first team, and elsewhere would suggest we make better use of the loan system to give youngsters more first team experience to minimise the jump from u23 youth football to Spurs first team but it is clearly not an insurmountable gap - and maybe Tanganga's 5 matches for u23's v League 1 and League 2 sides in the EFL trophy helps bridge that gap a little.

As I say I think its an essential piece of squad management to both buy players and develop your own in parallel - and makes good financial sense as well as the need to fill some of the squad with Club trained and HG players..

This is the Onomah thread and by his own admission he found the step up to big both physically and mentally and he's not alone, the list of players who have failed is far, far, far longer than those who have succeeded, not saying it can't work Winks, Tanganga and Skipp are all hanging in there but Charlie Daniels, Adam Smith, Ryan Fredericks all needed the move to escape the pressure ...

I like the idea of keeping the very, very best at home, but having players around the squad who will almost never getting playing time, how does that help them or us? We have 30 players in the under 23's with currently 5 out on loan, we have another 28 first and second year academy players .... maybe one a season will make the huge step into the EPL team if we're very lucky ...

 

[Spursidol]

In short, I've no idea if it's better to loan a player out or keep him at Hotspur Way or have them play 15mins in the Kangaroo Cup.

You presume that Sjipp would have played had he got a loan. How did Clarke's loan go this season? or Edwards last? Loans depend on the club he's loaned to, the system they play and of course if they even play. I get that in some cases even if they don't play they've gained experience at another club, perhaps this was the sole intent of their development???

Key point is playing between 18 and 21 - its through playing they get experience and learn things.

Sure I'm sure coaches teach players with a blackboard and chalk (or the modern equivalent) together with videos etc but unless they are laying and practicing things the coaches teach them, its not good for their development

So staying at Hotspur Way .is good - if he's getting minutes as Tanganga is right now. If that stops on 1 February and JM says no more play for you this season, then it would be better if Tanganga went on loan this TW. But I hope that's not the case.

If Skipp is nopt going to play in 2nd half of the season, a loan where he plays is probably best route for Skipp.

But this is where Spurs are now behind the times, they need to get more professional with loans starting with employing a Loan Manager to liaise with clubs agreeing types of players they want and getting agreement they will play plus getting someone to do a mentoring (or even a parental or older brother role) to help the youngster find accommodation, ensure they know how to feed themselves correctly and all the 101 things young people of 18 wont necessarily know. Plus monitoring the players match experience during the loan period and talking to the club who loaned the player etc