The BBC has provided an interesting read on the national teams youth sides, particularly the U21's as well. They compared the minutes that U21 players from each national teams squads get amongst the top 4 leagues (England, Spain, Germany and Italy). Surprise, surprise - England have the worst.
This is believed to have some impact on how players develop and I for one agree with this theory. But then again, how do we amend this? The TV deal over the last couple of years will not have helped, allowing the top 20 teams to buy basically whoever they feel they need at whatever price they want nowadays. But how do we put a stop to this? A foreign limit rule? Stricter rules on how many English players are allowed in a 25 man squad, or potentially a match day squad? There are many ways of changing this for the better, but I think its a matter of when rather than how because at the moment, some good English talent is being burnt out of any football in the PL, hence why 2/3 have moved abroad recently.
Personally I think the total number of minutes for England U21 players will go up this season. There are players such as Harry Winks, Jordan Pickford, Dominic Calvert-Lewin, Tom Davies, Mason Holgate, Ruben Loftus-Cheek etc that will undoubtedly see more game time this season, either because they've moved on loan, permanently or are just good players for their respective squads. I'm sure I will have missed some. Even some that are still young but will not qualify for the U21's, such as Nathaniel Chalobah for instance, have also moved on to get some game time. Fact of the matter is, when do the FA change home-grown rules for us to bring through young English talent?
Top flight minutes
posted on 5/10/17
The fact that Kane was given a few starts at the end of the season (despite Adebayor being the replacement for Soldado) shows he was in the thoughts of the manager. The fact he wasn't on loan in the first place shows this. He was on the radar, but had yet to take his chance in any of the opportunities he was given.
His form cemented his place in the thoughts of the managerial team, but he was not considered ready for the first team in the PL. It was the Europa games where he established himself as a viable option, at which time he replaced a fit Soldado in the Spurs XI and the rest is history...
posted on 5/10/17
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
These are the Kane stats Ledders posted:
Kane:
Squad - 16
Started - 6
Subbed - 4
Bench - 6
Injured - 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
And how do they prove me incorrect?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bit you have said you were wrong already - that Ledders said Kane started 22 games
posted on 5/10/17
D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
You keep saying Adebayor was the replacement for Soldado - that is nonsense.
Sherwood had played two up top against weaker opposition. Those two were Adebayor and Soldado.
He chose to play two up top against Sunderland. Kane and Adebayor played.
That means Kane replaced Soldado.
What don't you understand?
His minutes for Spurs that season had reduced and were virtually non existent by the time that game came round.
We will never know what would have happened, but in my view it is Soldado's injury, meaning Kane played when he wouldn't have otherwise, that set a chain of events in motion that established him in the first team squad for the next season.
You're welcome to disagree but nothing I have said is wrong or illogical.
posted on 5/10/17
D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
I'm referring to the fact that he said I was factually incorrect and then posted up the stats for 13/14 season.
Interested to know how those stats disprove my point.
Answer: they don't.
posted on 5/10/17
You keep saying Adebayor was the replacement for Soldado - that is nonsense.
========
Soldado started the two games before, Adebayor was on the bench. The two games prior it was the other way round. Against Norwich, Newcastle, Everton (weaker teams) it was Adebayor. They were being rotated. Adebayor in for Soldado and vice versa.
Even with Soldado injured, Adebayor was the man to come in.
He didn't start a PL game until mid-November the next season, on the back of 7 goals in 6 games in the Europa. When he did get into the PL team Soldado was fit and well. He even played behind Soldado in some games.
posted on 5/10/17
D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
Sherwood had started to play one up against better opposition and was playing two up against weaker opposition at home - see Palace and Cardiff for examples.
He clearly decided to play two up top against Sunderland, in the same manner.
And it doesn't take a genius to work out that if fit, that second striker would have been Soldado - not Kane.
Arguing this just makes you look like someone who can't handle being wrong.
posted on 5/10/17
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
Sherwood had started to play one up against better opposition and was playing two up against weaker opposition at home - see Palace and Cardiff for examples.
He clearly decided to play two up top against Sunderland, in the same manner.
And it doesn't take a genius to work out that if fit, that second striker would have been Soldado - not Kane.
Arguing this just makes you look like someone who can't handle being wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he didn't fancy Kane, as your narrative suggests, then he would have stayed with the one up front - Adebayor - rather than using a player he didn't want to. The fact is he clearly felt Kane could do a job for him in these games - was probably showing up in training. The fact they were pretty much dead rubbers at the end of the season probably helped.
The idea that Kane only got a chance because Soldado was injured simply does not stand up. He wasn't the only option, in fact the formation that had been used 9 out of 10 times had to be changed to fit Kane in.
And, after these end of season games, Kane started the next season in pretty much the same position. So these games did not push him ahead of Soldado, he was still a player who got the odd minute off the bench. Until mid-November, after scoring 7 in 6 in the Europa - the true breakthrough.
posted on 5/10/17
D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
Fair point about not playing Kane at all.
But in truth, it's possible not to think someone is completely useless but still not think they're good enough to make it.
"The idea that Kane only got a chance because Soldado was injured simply does not stand up."
Yes, it does.
If Soldado were fit, he'd have started that game alongside Adebayor most likely.
No reason that Kane would have started any of the remaining six games.
I didn't say it pushed him ahead of Soldado but you're wrong - his minutes significantly increased the following season, off the back of those six games.
You previously rubbished my point and said they were only playing one upfront. As I have proven, in many home games that is not the case. Would appreciate some honesty when my points are not proven to be the rubbish that you thought they were.
posted on 5/10/17
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 22 hours, 37 minutes ago
The majority of times a player isn't blooded as a 17 year old is not because he is not good enough. It is usually he isn't physically ready, mentally ready or needs to develop his game further.
A player deemed not good enough is released.
-----------------------------------------------------
You can't just pick and choose some words out of my sentences and then make my point out to be wrong. I think you'll find I said "there was once a time where they weren't good enough". That's very different to just saying, as you seem to think I said, "not good enough".
posted on 6/10/17
not read the whole thread, but the last page seems to have completely left the original topic and become an argument about how many games kane started.
so back to young players development.
considering how the league cup is now a distraction/irrelevance for most teams. use it for the young players. and by that, I mean give the clubs no choice.
of the 10 outfield players, a max of 4 1st team members on the field at any point. then 3 under 23's, 2 under 18's, 1 under 16. (or 3 u21's, 2 u18's, 1 u16)
gives them a chance to test and compare themselves with/against full 1st team players and see where they're ok, and where they fall short, and gives them experience in a proper competitive environment in front of big crowds in large stadiums.
also gives the managers some tactical conundrums, go for a strong spine with youth on the wings, load up the attack with 1st teamers and hope they're playing against young defenders, or vice versa, etc.