Should we let Pritchard go?
Sky Sports are running a story from the infamous 'Sky Sources' which basically means something they have found on the Internet.
There is some ITK on COYS Forum, arguably the only decent Spurs forum on the net, that says Pritchard can go. The Sky story may well have simply come from that forum post. What do you think?
The story may or may not be true, his WBA loan was a disaster, he didn't fit the Tony Pulis style so why did we send him there? Was it to do them a favour in the hope of building some goodwill? I don't see how that would have worked if they have a manager who isn't interested in creative players. Pulis teams all play the same way and you'd struggle to name a creative player in them, let alone a small one.
The 23-year-old (24 next May) has a contract until 2019 but is behind everyone else in his development thanks to injury and not playing regularly. He had a Malleolar injury, sat on th bench for a bit and then simply wasn't picked. He was hardly going to fit into a physical side, as all Pulis sides are.
So what should we do with him now? he isn't a proven Premier League player yet and thus, there may not be the opportunity to play him given we need to rest players for the Champions League without severely weakening the Premier League side. Keeping him would, therefore, be a gamble, he needs a season of football and we can't provide that.
Do we sell him or do we loan him out until January so he can prove himself. Would the promoted clubs want him, would Bournemouth want him or Crystal Palace?
There is some ITK on COYS Forum, arguably the only decent Spurs forum on the net, that says Pritchard can go. The Sky story may well have simply come from that forum post. What do you think?
The story may or may not be true, his WBA loan was a disaster, he didn't fit the Tony Pulis style so why did we send him there? Was it to do them a favour in the hope of building some goodwill? I don't see how that would have worked if they have a manager who isn't interested in creative players. Pulis teams all play the same way and you'd struggle to name a creative player in them, let alone a small one.
The 23-year-old (24 next May) has a contract until 2019 but is behind everyone else in his development thanks to injury and not playing regularly. He had a Malleolar injury, sat on th bench for a bit and then simply wasn't picked. He was hardly going to fit into a physical side, as all Pulis sides are.
So what should we do with him now? he isn't a proven Premier League player yet and thus, there may not be the opportunity to play him given we need to rest players for the Champions League without severely weakening the Premier League side. Keeping him would, therefore, be a gamble, he needs a season of football and we can't provide that.
Do we sell him or do we loan him out until January so he can prove himself. Would the promoted clubs want him, would Bournemouth want him or Crystal Palace?
2 comments
He were too good for championship, and even David James said he's been around football for so long but Pritchard is a very special talent.
He's like Hazard the way he attacks but moreover he's both footed, great vision, excellent dribble & crazy balance and can score amazing free kicks.
If we let him go it'd be a massive mistake. I'd not sell him for £20 mil. He's better than Mason and Carroll combined. Mistake if we let another gem like Kane potential like go.
I have been following football a long time. I know what i'm saying sounds over the top but that's how i feel about Pritchard. I'm realistic too, and maybe completely off but my gut feeling is strong about this.