Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tottenham Hotspur' started by WindyCOYS, 24 Jul 2018.
Do you really think Sancho would have been much less an effective squad player than Mahrez for 65m?
I think in that City side Sancho would have been as good/productive as he's been for Dortmund. And he's better without the ball than Mahrez too.
The only thing I would question, is if he'd have got the same amount of minutes that Mahrez has been given.
It's a good question, I think the Bundesliga is certainly a step down from the EPL, top teams are very good but the standard falls away much faster below them than it does in the EPL. This has allowed Sancho to develop in a way I doubt he would have been able to do at City.
Mahrez gives you an EPL title winner with close to 150 EPL appearances, you can't beat experience.
Bottom line I don't think Pep could reasonably take the option to play an unproven 18 year old when he could spend 65m on very proven 26 year old. What manager would make that call?
You say 'better without the ball than Mahrez' just not sure about that, I've not seen that many full games to have a fixed idea but looking at a few of the stats sites they all say that his defensive contribution is a weakness. Let's hope he comes back to the EPL so we can get a better look.
Jadon Sancho Football Statistics | WhoScored.com
6 goals and 7 assists in the Bundesliga in 10 starts and 7 off the bench totalling 1025 minutes meaning he's averaging better than a goal or assist every match at 78 minutes.
Riyad Mahrez Football Statistics | WhoScored.com
5 goals and 2 assists in 1- starts and 9 off the bench totalling 943 minutes, meaning a goal of assist every 134 minutes (almost double Sancho)
Given Mahrez is playing with better players, I'd suggest ManCity would have been better to save £65m and go with Sancho who is 8 years younger, more malleable to what ManCity wants and possibly more effective based upon stats as the drop off in Bunesliga v PL doesn't account for the doubling of goals and assists per 90 minutes
No he definitely wouldn't. That's the point though. Would City have been worse off if Sancho had the minutes that Mahrez has had?
That's the rub, stay at City and he'd probably have played a few cup games against very weak sides, or go to Dortmund and play more games against weaker league opposition. Think he made the right call but will reserve judgment for that all important second season, the season when defenses know what you're all about, let's see how he does then.
Sancho definitely made the right call, just not sure City did.
I don't know whether it's irony or coincidence.
At a time when there is so much money at the very top of the game -
The top clubs have built fantastic Academy infrastructure (expensive of course) -
Resulting in some of the finest young talent in the world -
Who get very little chance to shine for their clubs' first teams -
Because League points have never been worth so much -
At a time when there is so much money at the very top of the game -
Rinse and repeat
Right now the headlines are being made by the German clubs who have jumped in to buy (relatively) unproven talent. I don't know why more clubs over here don't do likewise. Brentford seem to have that as a business model - ie NO academy. Just get a bloody good manager and pick up rough diamonds and see what happens. Theyv'e come very close to promotion to PL recently.
I'm sure someone like Eddie Howe (who still has first teamers who were kids in the old Div 1 teams) could do the same without having to buy any overseas "talent".
I think a factor is that so many clubs in the top flight now need results quickly because as you said, league points are almost priceless. Few managers spend time developing younger players. Opting for the "safer" bet of proven talent. For every Poch, Howe and even Dyche (who's brought through a few youngsters at Burnley) there are 10 Mourinhos.
Hearts up in Scotland are leading the youth charge at the moment. They've had more academy players take to the field than any other team in Europe apparently this season. 9 of those have been given full on professional contracts.
In leagues with less money, youth development becomes key because it is a good way to raise money. Develop youngsters into proven players that are then sold on to bigger leagues.
If we was given the same opportunities, then no, I don't think City would have been worse off.
But if we take the Pulisic example for Chelsea. Is he really the "safer" bet as opposed to giving Hudson-Odoi a chance?
Pulisic is 20 years old, recently this season hasn't been a regular starter. I doubt Dortmund will be investing a huge amount of time in to his development over the next 6 months. Can see him being used as a utility sub or to give Sancho a rest here and there. He'll be moving to a new country, granted for him the language is not an issue, but he'll have to get settled and used to the Premier League, which will probably take a year or two until he's hitting consistent form.
Why not give that time to Hudson-Odoi instead, and if it works out you've saved yourself 60 million and have a player who is potentially at the same level. I know it's all speculation etc. but 60 million is a big gamble. The only rationale I can see behind this move, is that Chelsea are looking to boost their standing in the US market by signing Pulisic, and they believe that 60 million is a small investment, for the benefits that they could reap.
It comes down to the "established name =/= better" paradox. There's not much age between Pulisic and Hudson-Odoi. But Pulisic has years of first team football in him so he "should be better" than their own youth prospect.
Had Sarri been at Chelsea longer he might feel more comfortable with Hudson, since he would know more about him. But here we are.
Also with Pulisic there's also some marketing plot baked into it. Gunning for the US market.
This is the thing, and I actually wrote a piece about it in the blog, to a degree, you can rationalise it with the likes of Chelsea and ManC (even if you still disagree with it) but for any club from about 6/7th PL downwards through championship and lower, there’s massive footballing and financial incentives (as the German clubs realise) for developing young players. They need to wise up.
And players are starting to wise up.
For the last couple of years I've thought it possible to emulate Celtic 1967 Lisbon Lions. Famously won European Cup (easier in those days granted); 10 of the 11 grew up around the corner from Celtic Park. 11th 30 miles away.
Not saying it's easy, but I reckon if you do EVERYTHING right on the Academy side, with the odd bit of poaching from others', if you've got the best of breed elsewhere - coaching, managing, infrastructure, ownership - I think you can win titles that way.
Probably never get the chance to see it happen, but I think its possible
Athletic Bilbao would be an interesting case study. I know that they went away from that model a little, where now in order to qualify, you just need to have a Basque Granny.
But despite that, they are still a good side (ok, just checked the La Liga table and this season they aren't doing too well) - I think their problem is that they need to sell their top players in order to keep the process up. Maybe in the Premier League, with the additional income that provides they wouldn't be as reliant on selling.
The irony with Pulsic is that he's no longer a regular starter at Dortmund - pushed to the sidelines by Sancho, who of course jumped ship from ManCity because he couldn't get any game time over the ManCity established stars especially with them having bought Mahrez
So Chelsea buy Pulisic rather than give Hudson-Odoi a chance - even though he's been with Chelsea for years and they know him inside out and he looks a very good player.
The only advantage Pulsic gives Chelsea is exposure in the US market, but a big price to pay !
That'll be the number one reason for signing Pulisic.
People are seeing it as Pulisic is coming in to take CHO's place. He isn't. He's likely there to eventually replace the ageing Willian and Pedro. But what comes with Pulisic is that HUGE American market where he is a star.
Chelsea should be doing all they can to get him a Premier League loan or a first team loan abroad for the next 6 months and then moving on Willian/Pedro in the summer and bringing in CHO to the first team. Especially as it's likely Hazard is off.
But they're likely to sell him.
It's crazy. They have such a talented youth team. It just shows the pressure managers are under at top clubs when they can't even play these guys. Abraham, RLC, Hudson-Odoi could all be getting games here. Successful loans to Tomori and Mount could see them in Chelsea's squad next season etc. - instead they'd rather sign Barkley.
Bilbao has always been a 'Basque' only club, so its catchment 'area' is necessarily fairly small (and why they want Llorente back), and with the relatively few established Basque players the only way forward is to take them in at a young age and develop them.
Not sure its a model that Spurs could really follow - although its true these days that Spurs tend to recruit from the area around the club - even a player from as far away as Southend is a rarity these days. And the reason for that it that it seems that local players tend to have a bigger affinity with the club and less chance of them moving on when they become established - Kane being the obvious example.
Yes, what I meant is that in recent years, they have seen it neccessary to expand that, where the players don't have to be born in the Basque country, to those who had some kind of family connection.