Josh Onomah

[GREAT_BEARD_OF_ZEUS]

I'm a big fan of Onomah and, having the strong physcial presence that he does, he takes some of the pressure and attention off Davis.

I wouldn't change the current starting line-up, but at some point it would be good to see Grealish and Onomah playing behind Davis as a front 3.

[Guest av1]

The kid can be as ambitious as he wants, but I've seen nothing yet to suggest he gets into any PL team in the top 10/12, let alone Spurs. 

[tismyk]

39 minutes ago, av1 said:

The kid can be as ambitious as he wants, but I've seen nothing yet to suggest he gets into any PL team in the top 10/12, let alone Spurs. 

Not sure how he gets in ours with his VP displays

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, AntrimBlack said:

Absolutely not. This is the guy who has really turned our season round.

When he’s good he’s very good. But he’s had a fair few games where he’s been ineffective. 

[AntrimBlack]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

When he’s good he’s very good. But he’s had a fair few games where he’s been ineffective. 

Just like Onomah, I think.

[Stevo985]

37 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

Just like Onomah, I think.

Quite. Which was more or less my point. I just think Onomah has been MORE consistent than davis. 

But the general point was they’re both inconsistent because they’re young players. 

What I was getting at was we are laying on the praise to Davis despite his inconsistency. The same can be afforded to Onomah. 

Edited November 27, 2017 by Stevo985

[AntrimBlack]

13 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Quite. Which was more or less my point. I just think Onomah has been MORE consistent than davis. 

But the general point was they’re both inconsistent because they’re young players. 

What I was getting at was we are laying on the praise to Davis despite his inconsistency. The same can be afforded to Onomah. 

The difference, to me, Stevo, is that Davis is one of ours, whereas Onomah, as a loan player, I would expect to be more consistent.

[BOF]

4 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

The difference, to me, Stevo, is that Davis is one of ours, whereas Onomah, as a loan player, I would expect to be more consistent.

I think "expect" is harsh. Why would you expect Onomah to be more consistent than Davis?  There's only 10 months between them in age.  20 v 19.

What I do think is a natural thing is that we will afford our own players more leeway.  We'll give them a pass where we won't give someone else a pass because frankly we don't have the same emotional investment in him, and may even resent the situation on some small level because we're developing him for someone else.  But that doesn't change the fact that 2 young players are going to be inconsistent be it through form or fatigue, whether we expect them to or not.

[TRO]

In terms of resillience and robustness.....doing a good job.

we just need a bit more guile by not having to rely so much on Albert.

[AntrimBlack]

1 minute ago, BOF said:

I think "expect" is harsh. Why would you expect Onomah to be more consistent than Davis?  There's only 10 months between them in age.  20 v 19.

What I do think is a natural thing is that we will afford our own players more leeway.  We'll give them a pass where we won't give someone else a pass because frankly we don't have the same emotional investment in him, and may even resent him on some small level because we're developing him for someone else.  But that doesn't change the fact that 2 young players are going to be inconsistent be it through form or fatigue, whether we expect them to or not.

A loan player, to me, should be good enough to make a serious impact for his loan club. You should not be taking a loanee to develop him, he should be here to make an impact, ala Snodgrass.

That's a proper loanee.

[BOF]

Just now, AntrimBlack said:

A loan player, to me, should be good enough to make a serious impact for his loan club. You should not be taking a loanee to develop him, he should be here to make an impact, ala Snodgrass.

That's a proper loanee.

Then don't loan 20 year olds. #BruceOut

[Czechlad]

It kind of irks me that we are turning Onomah into a better player each week while we have Grealish and O'hare sitting on the bench. But I also understand that we need to be winning matches and Onomah is definitely helping us do that.

Still feels wrong to be developing another club's player who we won't be able to retain while our players sit. 

[TRO]

1 minute ago, AntrimBlack said:

A loan player, to me, should be good enough to make a serious impact for his loan club. You should not be taking a loanee to develop him, he should be here to make an impact, ala Snodgrass.

That's a proper loanee.

But, it depends what end of the age spectrum they are.

usually

• The young ones are on the way up
• The old ones are on the way down.....and you loan them for that reason.

[BOF]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

But, it depends what end of the age spectrum they are.

usually

• The young ones are on the way up
• The old ones are on the way down.....and you loan them for that reason.

The best ones are the 3rd category.  Disgruntled, in their prime with a point to prove.  See Snodgrass.

[AntrimBlack]

3 minutes ago, BOF said:

Then don't loan 20 year olds. #BruceOut

Agree with the first bit.

Don't agree with the second bit. (At the moment)

[BOF]

Just now, AntrimBlack said:

Agree with the first bit.

Don't agree with the second bit. (At the moment)

Second bit was tongue in cheek  

[AntrimBlack]

2 minutes ago, TRO said:

But, it depends what end of the age spectrum they are.

usually

• The young ones are on the way up
• The old ones are on the way down.....and you loan them for that reason.

So you agree with me?

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, Czechlad said:

It kind of irks me that we are turning Onomah into a better player each week while we have Grealish and O'hare sitting on the bench. But I also understand that we need to be winning matches and Onomah is definitely helping us do that.

Still feels wrong to be developing another club's player who we won't be able to retain while our players sit. 

But onomah has the physical presence they don't have.

If you play O'hare or Grealish they have to do damage with their guile......no, ifs, but, or maybe's.......its risk.

i would suspect and thats all it is, that Onomah will be seen as less of a risk to the way we play.

[BOF]

8 minutes ago, Czechlad said:

It kind of irks me that we are turning Onomah into a better player each week while we have Grealish and O'hare sitting on the bench. But I also understand that we need to be winning matches and Onomah is definitely helping us do that.

Still feels wrong to be developing another club's player who we won't be able to retain while our players sit. 

If we DO go up (fingers crossed) we actually want Spurs to do really well so that they out-grow the need for Onomah.  At the moment as a Chumpionship club I agree there's no hope of us holding on to him.  But as a Premier League club with Spurs flirting with the title and buying to compete in the CL as well I wouldn't say it's impossible that we hang on to him.  But yes I'd agree it's slim.

[Czechlad]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

But onomah has the physical presence they don't have.

If you play O'hare or Grealish they have to do damage with their guile......no, ifs, but, or maybe's.......its risk.

i would suspect and thats all it is, that Onomah will be seen as less of a risk to the way we play.

I do get why we play Onomah. He suits our style and it would be a risk to switch him for Grealish or O'hare. But what happens if we are promoted and Spurs refuse to sell us Onomah or loan him again? Then we are now in the premier league and experimenting with new attacking mids.  

I am probably thinking too far ahead, but I don't want to see us get screwed over by spurs.