captainchris Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Why do we persist with playing a player like Fox who is without doubt very dodgy when we could blood some of our youth who we say we wish to push on and yet we prefer to persist with a very very poor player. Shaw is living proof that age does not matter if you are good enough. If Fox was at all close to being a prospect for next year fair enough but he's not. So why no use of the younger prospects when the opportunity presents it's self.......?
The Kraken Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Which youngster would you suggest instead of Fox?
Miltonroader07 Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 I think I agree in principle BUT there is the experience issue, it is a fine line between Experience and Ability. I hope that once we are safe that the Sherriff will blood some young talent more
Miltonroader07 Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Which youngster would you suggest instead of Fox? My point exactly Krak
Smirking_Saint Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Shaw is 17, whats your thoughts ? One of the under 15s ? Yeah, sure they would do a better job
stevegrant Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Since Luke Shaw broke into the team, Fox has started 4 league games, all of them due to injury. I'd hardly say that's "persisting" with him. Matt Targett seems to be the next left-back coming through the system but I assume he's not deemed good enough yet. Let's face it, Shaw's the number one and we're unlikely to sign another left-back who's either a) better than Shaw, or b) good enough to challenge to be a first-choice Premier League left-back but happy enough to sit on the bench behind someone who will be 18 years old next season. For the low number of games where Fox is going to be needed, he'll do.
CB Fry Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Why do we persist with playing a player like Fox who is without doubt very dodgy when we could blood some of our youth who we say we wish to push on and yet we prefer to persist with a very very poor player. Shaw is living proof that age does not matter if you are good enough. If Fox was at all close to being a prospect for next year fair enough but he's not. So why no use of the younger prospects when the opportunity presents it's self.......? Shaw is living proof that if you are good enough then you are good enough. He is not living proof that all young players are good enough.
Matthew Le God Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Shaw is living proof that if you are good enough then you are good enough. Hmmm...
moonraker Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 I do find this sort of question foolish and normally ignore them but they are becoming the staple fodder on this board. We have blooded a youngster at left back and he is now first choice, Fox is an experienced if somewhat limited left back, tough not as badb a many make out. Just how many promising left backs do we have in the academy?
Matthew Le God Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Just how many promising left backs do we have in the academy? As Steve Grant said, Matt Targett is the next one.
pingwing Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 We don't persist with Fox... We can't just throw something even less talented in the deep end when Shaw is getting burnt out (he's 17, it's harsh to make him go for every game)
Barry Sanchez Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Shaw is living proof that if you are good enough then you are good enough. He is not living proof that all young players are good enough. How is Daniel Fox ever become a footballer then?
Colinjb Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Better to stick with a limited but willing senior then risk destroying a youngster's confidence by throwing him in too soon. Not every academy product, regardless of seeming potential, will be a world beater.
The Kraken Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 How is Daniel Fox ever become a footballer then? Because he was good enough for a certain level, Bazatron.
shurlock Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 If JWP is the next man up on our conveyor belt of talent, it can't say much about the readiness of the rest of our youngsters.
The Kraken Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 If JWP is the next man up on our conveyor belt of talent, it can't say much about the readiness of the rest of our youngsters. F*cking hell, talk about unrealistic standards. JWP looked decent enough throughout this season against some of the better sides in the division. And he's 18 years old. We're not going to produce a Luke Shaw, Walcott, Bale etc every single season. It won't happen. We'll also not realise the quality of some of our talent until they're in their early twenties.
Barry Sanchez Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Because he was good enough for a certain level, Bazatron. What level was that do you think as he has played at all levels and to me he has been found wanting at every one.
The Kraken Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 What level was that do you think as he has played at all levels and to me he has been found wanting at every one. He was a constant feature of a side that was never outside the top two of the Championship in a promotion season. If he was found wanting I'd have thought he would have been replaced more often that he was. Especially so considering we had other left back options available to us.
Miltonroader07 Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Since Luke Shaw broke into the team, Fox has started 4 league games, all of them due to injury. I'd hardly say that's "persisting" with him. Matt Targett seems to be the next left-back coming through the system but I assume he's not deemed good enough yet. Let's face it, Shaw's the number one and we're unlikely to sign another left-back who's either a) better than Shaw, or b) good enough to challenge to be a first-choice Premier League left-back but happy enough to sit on the bench behind someone who will be 18 years old next season. For the low number of games where Fox is going to be needed, he'll do. Hate to agree with a Mod but I think she has a good point
The Kraken Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Hate to agree with a Mod but I think she has a good point Milt; your banter needs work. You keep doing this "gag" on many others. Try harder, pal.
mcjwills Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Also there is a little case of 800K per league position.
Colinjb Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Also there is a little case of 800K per league position. Yep. The concept of a dead rubber game in the Premier League really isn't true. (Unless it's the final match and there are 4 points between you and the sides both below and above you.)
shurlock Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 (edited) F*cking hell, talk about unrealistic standards. JWP looked decent enough throughout this season against some of the better sides in the division. And he's 18 years old. We're not going to produce a Luke Shaw, Walcott, Bale etc every single season. It won't happen. We'll also not realise the quality of some of our talent until they're in their early twenties. Don't disagree. But the point about Fox is that we need players for the here and now, not their future talent -and players should largely be selected on that basis. Rereading the posts on JWP earlier on the season, some of the hype he was getting was frankly ridiculous; "Davis is ****, we won't miss Morgan, we've got JWP etc". He's got a long way to go -at least 2/3 years IMO- longer than some on here would admit. All perfectly reasonable and natural given his age. But even if's that the case and he's the cream of the crop (behind Shaw), it puts the idea of blooding youngsters in a slightly different light. Edited 19 April, 2013 by shurlock
The Kraken Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Don't disagree. But the point about Fox is that we need players for the here and now, not their future talent -and that should be the main basis for their selection. Rereading the posts on JWP earlier on the season, some of the hype he was getting was frankly ridiculous. He's got a long way to go -at least 2/3 years IMO- longer than some on here would admit. All perfectly reasonable and natural given his age. Amen to that. But even if's that the case and he's the currently cream of the crop (behind Shaw), it puts the idea of blooding youngsters in a slightly different light. Amen to that too. I've said it before, but even if we had kept every single one of our youth products over the years (never going to happen) it takes us further than where we are, but not enormously further. Blooding youngsters is great; expecting it to push us on to CL qualification is a bit naive IMO.
NickG Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 If JWP is the next man up on our conveyor belt of talent, it can't say much about the readiness of the rest of our youngsters. No English 18 year old played as much in prem this season. (There is a 17 year old!) One 19 year old played more (AOC). No 20 year olds. 18 is incredibly young for prem CM. Plays England u19.... Think most clubs would be excited if that was indication of ability and readiness of youths.
The9 Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 Shaw is living proof that if you are good enough then you are good enough. Didn't someone not a million miles from here mock my policy of "having better players to be better" in reference to Lambert a few weeks back ?
The9 Posted 19 April, 2013 Posted 19 April, 2013 As for the OP. Our first choice left back is 17. Half the team is under 25 and most of them have under a year's Prem experience. How are we meant to improve on that in terms of blooding youngsters ? I suppose we could throw Targett in, but if he's not ready yet, why risk ruining him when the first few appearances are very significant in a player's development in terms of confidence and comfort at that level ? In addition, for as long as he's in the youth structure and has NEVER been in contention, he's not getting frustrated with a lack of opportunities and threatening to leave. If he gets a sniff and then nothing it could also damage his chances - but hopefully Shaw's sticking around and will be tough to displace. Also, blooding new players is a dodgy game when the difference in prize money from 9th to 16th positions could probably pay for a significant chunk of the cost of running the Academy. That said, you have to do it at some point and I wouldn't be surprised to see Ward-Prowse getting a start or two in the last few matches.
Bearsy Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 I see that Targett play a couple of months back and he was, to put it politely, not ready.
david in sweden Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 .....psychologically-speaking, I wouldn't introduce anyone else .....at present, not until we've got Shaw's signature on a five year contract anyway. I've watched a few U21 games (on stream)....and Matt Targett looks promising, but wouldn't want to throw him into a Prem. game just at the moment.
Mowgli Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 Because since Shaw cemented his place at left back Fox has upped his game and has been a more than capable deputy.
dronskisaint Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 Because since Shaw cemented his place at left back Fox has upped his game and has been a more than capable deputy. This - Fox is not as bad as the blinkered ones insist. He's an adequate cover until we have a better option and actually adds to one aspect of our game with his dead ball crossing ability.
scotty Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 This - Fox is not as bad as the blinkered ones insist. He's an adequate cover until we have a better option and actually adds to one aspect of our game with his dead ball crossing ability. +1.
Panda Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 Some of you are like a pack of hounds, one scent of the Fox and you will persue him until he is no more!
captainchris Posted 20 April, 2013 Author Posted 20 April, 2013 Some good points not totally disagreeing with lots of them. I just think Fox is a long way short and that we are badly lacking in this area if we don't have anyone coming through who is remotely going to challenge him....thought Reeves was looking good a little while ago and would have done at least as good a job as Fox who hasn't improved. In other positions we mostly have seem less cover or options now, however in the left back position we are exposed without Shaw.
scotty Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 Some good points not totally disagreeing with lots of them. I just think Fox is a long way short and that we are badly lacking in this area if we don't have anyone coming through who is remotely going to challenge him....thought Reeves was looking good a little while ago and would have done at least as good a job as Fox who hasn't improved. In other positions we mostly have seem less cover or options now, however in the left back position we are exposed without Shaw. Reeves wasn't anywhere near close to ready for the first team when he came on against Norwich at SMS. Good prospect for the future, but right now I'd far rather have Fox there.
S-Clarke Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 Reeves wasn't anywhere near close to ready for the first team when he came on against Norwich at SMS. Good prospect for the future, but right now I'd far rather have Fox there. Reeves isn't even a LB anymore. To be honest, he won't make it with us. He's coming on to 22 now and he's still wandering around in L2. Will be a decent lower league player, but that's it. Not really a prospect for us to get excited about anymore.
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 ... Rereading the posts on JWP earlier on the season, some of the hype he was getting was frankly ridiculous; "Davis is ****, we won't miss Morgan, we've got JWP etc". He's got a long way to go -at least 2/3 years IMO- longer than some on here would admit. All perfectly reasonable and natural given his age. But even if's that the case and he's the cream of the crop (behind Shaw), it puts the idea of blooding youngsters in a slightly different light. Good point, I too remember the massively premature 'JWP is the next big thing' hype from the early days of this season. I'm pleased to see the forum seems to have calmed down a tad on that front of late. Whenever I see this youngster in the first team I must say he doesn't look out of his (energetic) depth playing in this division - and that's a real achievement for one so young - but I can't honestly claim he has made an especially outstanding contribution so far either. So it's just too early to say for certain how good he will become as his body, technique and level of experience matures naturally over time. If you twisted my arm and forced me to guess however, I'd rate him as a decent prospect rather than a outstanding one in the class of previous academy products such as AOC, Bale, Walcott, or even his contemporary Luke Shaw. As ever, time will tell.
scotty Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 Reeves isn't even a LB anymore. To be honest, he won't make it with us. He's coming on to 22 now and he's still wandering around in L2. Will be a decent lower league player, but that's it. Not really a prospect for us to get excited about anymore. tbh, I've seen very little of him apart from the Norwich game.
SaintBobby Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 Fox is just about adequate as cover. But I think I'd prefer the cover for Shaw to be switching Clyne to left-back and putting Cork (or maybe even Richardson) to right back.
The9 Posted 20 April, 2013 Posted 20 April, 2013 Fox is just about adequate as cover. But I think I'd prefer the cover for Shaw to be switching Clyne to left-back and putting Cork (or maybe even Richardson) to right back. I'd actually prefer Fox at left back than Cork at right back, where he's been absolutely useless every time I've seen him there (viz him covering against Newcastle there for their first goal, though of course Fox wasn't without error in that match either). Moving Cork also weakens the midfield. Haven't seen enough of Richardson at this level to know if he'd cope, but I think that's what Pochettino is doing with Fox before considering other options. Fox doesn't look so exposed now he's not being asked to push forward all the time, as I pointed out before Shaw got his run, he looks competent defending for Scotland when he's asked to actually defend. I'll still struggle to say he's starting on merit.
Saint Lindford Posted 21 April, 2013 Posted 21 April, 2013 Clearly the OP was not at yesterdays game After his performance yesterday I 4-1 am happy to have him. Luke Shaw is obviously first choice but Fox is a good back up to have.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now