Josh Onomah

[Dr Quinzel]

The best thing for Josh is that he has found his position and isn't being moved all over the pitch as he was initially. He's looked better with game time in one role and is a valuable part of the squad now.

I don't think the last game was the best to judge him, or TC for that matter, as both are working their way back from time away/in and out of the team. Tonight may be a better example of seeing what he's made of.

[colinwhite]

Hes a very athletic player who is very much box to box and wins most of physical challenges. Has become better on the ball of late but did have a bit of a puppy look about him . Lack of playing time in recent times meant he looked very leggy when he first came in. The answer to all our problems ? probaly not but has done well of late,and shown the abillity to play in all the positions across the midfield line. Badly coached by confused coaches ? Id say probably the opposite was true . Is a different players now to 6weeks ago.

[KJS]

He has been better than TC in recent games

[toshes mate]

I'm not inferring anything, you said "Parker and Wells have an emphatic interest in him doing well" as in emphatically more than other players in the squad.
Perhaps I'm wrong and if so I apologise, but it did seem clear as day to me.

I emphasised their interest since they mentored/were involved with Onomah at Spurs and that probably influenced our signing of him.  That naturally gives them a continuing interest and reason for mentoring the lad here but in the first team?  My point is 'are they the best guides for him with a midfield that has at times stunned us (with Onomah or without him), but then stuttered and stalled' ... throughout this season?  They may be too close to the lad since both Parker's and Wells's roles are different here - this is a first team football and not a youth squad.  R Sessegnon was noted to be SJ's pet (Cairney comment last season) because he was nurtured and cared for as a bright young FFC prospect for a long time to come and we lost him because of last season's fiasco.  Reverse psychology may be applied to Onomah since he can be seen as the hopeful replacement for our once bright star and  some redemption for getting last season so hopelessly wrong.     

The lad may be wasting a lot of his potential out there if he is not getting the right advice and guidance because Parker and Wells are guilty of naivety or inexperience or both?  I am trying to find a reason why, as I have said elsewhere, Onomah has been getting the nod over players who are potentially better by many measures because I feel Parker is over-complicating things

Nothing underhand implied.

Apology accepted.

[The Rational Fan]

I am trying to find a reason why, as I have said elsewhere, Onomah has been getting the nod over players who are potentially better by many measures.

I think the answer is simple most of the players are carrying injuries, if Onamah plays today those other players will be fresher for the rest of the season.

[Tabby]

I think Parker was told by TK to give him a participation badge because everyone thinks TK is a total joke.

I guess this makes sense if we ignore that every report talked about how it was Parker pushing for Onomah and the many interviews of him praising him as a great prospect.

There is plenty of stuff you can complain about when it comes to Tony Khan, but Onomah is someone that Parker was pushing for by all accounts. I can't imagine that his stats would look any good after his two seasons in the Championship.

As to Onomah, he has improved, but I still don't think he should be a starter.

[Dr Quinzel]

He has been better than TC in recent games

Unfortunately not the yardstick it used to be. Hopefully that changes in the run in.

[Jim©]

I think Parker was told by TK to give him a participation badge because everyone thinks TK is a total joke.

I guess this makes sense if we ignore that every report talked about how it was Parker pushing for Onomah and the many interviews of him praising him as a great prospect.

There is plenty of stuff you can complain about when it comes to Tony Khan, but Onomah is someone that Parker was pushing for by all accounts. I can't imagine that his stats would look any good after his two seasons in the Championship.

As to Onomah, he has improved, but I still don't think he should be a starter.

I don't think SP would take a blind bit of notice of TK saying who has to start, it's conspiracy theory gone mad. Again, here's the stats since he's been involved:  we've won 8 (3 subs appearances of 20,24 and 30 mins), drawn 2 and lost 3 (one sub appearance of 68 mins). In the ones we'd lost at Preston and Brentford, he was pretty clearly our best player, admittedly with a low bar.

[Matt10]

He starts for me. Strong on the ball, strong physically, box-to-box. I trust him when he gets the ball. How many times in the Boro match did he lose the ball? How many times was he able to keep the ball moving?

He does a lot of little things that get under-appreciated, and that's exactly what you want from a midfielder in his role.

[ALG01]

josh has massively improved but for me he is currently 'potential.' I do not think he merits an automatic start and does not make enough use of his physical prescence. I think the issue is what is his best position and in all three midfield spots we have better alternatives. But has certainly come on leaps and bounds.

Disagree.   I think his physical presence is exactly why he get's playing time, along with his desire to drive the ball forward (receive pass, quick turn...move forward with the ball).   While we play him as a box to box, in his own head I think he's thinking like an attacking mid.   When he's not in the midfield it's more noticeable than when any other midfielder not named Bobby Reid isn't there.   imo.  And this is with a 22 year old.

Whose a better box to box than him on the squad?   No, not Arter.  No, not Stephjo...Tom is a better attacking mid...not Harrison Reed.

And Parker know's his starting midfield when they are healthy.  It includes both Tom Cairney and Josh Onomah...and perhaps Bobby Reid (if he's not playing up top or on the wing).

Scott's faith in him this season (and apparent ability to see in him things that members of this forum don't) will benefit the team next season in the EPL.

Imagine him not missing the two sitters he missed in the game.   If he'd made those people would be singing his praises.

I said I do not think he makes enough of his physical prescence, mening he can do more to impose himself. I think he can be way better than he is and I actually think stef jo is better box to box by about a mile. TC does not compare because he is a thorougbred artist not a work horse,. I like TC a bit deeper so he has the canvass in front of him not compressed into a small spac in the last third.

But Onomah has hopefully way more to give and but needs to be much more involved and that is just up to him to impose himself...

[Bassey the warrior]

I'm not inferring anything, you said "Parker and Wells have an emphatic interest in him doing well" as in emphatically more than other players in the squad.
Perhaps I'm wrong and if so I apologise, but it did seem clear as day to me.

I emphasised their interest since they mentored/were involved with Onomah at Spurs and that probably influenced our signing of him.  That naturally gives them a continuing interest and reason for mentoring the lad here but in the first team?  My point is 'are they the best guides for him with a midfield that has at times stunned us (with Onomah or without him), but then stuttered and stalled' ... throughout this season?  They may be too close to the lad since both Parker's and Wells's roles are different here - this is a first team football and not a youth squad.  R Sessegnon was noted to be SJ's pet (Cairney comment last season) because he was nurtured and cared for as a bright young FFC prospect for a long time to come and we lost him because of last season's fiasco.  Reverse psychology may be applied to Onomah since he can be seen as the hopeful replacement for our once bright star and  some redemption for getting last season so hopelessly wrong.     

The lad may be wasting a lot of his potential out there if he is not getting the right advice and guidance because Parker and Wells are guilty of naivety or inexperience or both?  I am trying to find a reason why, as I have said elsewhere, Onomah has been getting the nod over players who are potentially better by many measures because I feel Parker is over-complicating things

Nothing underhand implied.

Apology accepted.

I don't see how you can argue they're not doing a good job coaching him, his performances have improved massively over the time he's been at the club, so this reflects well on the coaches.

I think the reason he starts over other perhaps more polished midfielders is he poses a goal threat in the way that realistically McDonald, Reed and Arter (excluding the worldie vs Aston Villa) don't. Johansen used to get in the box more than he does these days, presumably because he's lost a bit of pace and can't get up and down the pitch in the same way he did a few years ago. You've got Reid and Cairney that pose a goal threat but both of those players are more of a playmaker so they won't necessarily be busting a gut to get in the box.

I think Onomah is pulling his weight but we're blessed to have lots of quality in midfield so he knows he needs to keep performing.

[toshes mate]

I don't see how you can argue they're not doing a good job coaching him, his performances have improved massively over the time he's been at the club, so this reflects well on the coaches.

I could say I don't see how you can argue they are (doing a good job). 

It is called subjective opinion since neither of us know how (or even if) he would have played had someone else been in charge.

[Bassey the warrior]

I don't see how you can argue they're not doing a good job coaching him, his performances have improved massively over the time he's been at the club, so this reflects well on the coaches.

I could say I don't see how you can argue they are (doing a good job). 

It is called subjective opinion since neither of us know how (or even if) he would have played had someone else been in charge.

All you can do is base it on the evidence available, he joined and looked like a fish out of water and now he's starting and playing quite well. That's down to the coaches surely?
As for the suggestion he could be playing better under another coach, you just need to look back at his career and see if he was much better at another team as that could suggest maybe another coach could have got even more from him but nothing jumps out.

Therefore it makes sense to credit the coaching team and of course the player for the improvement and of course to hope he will continue to improve.

[Jim©]

I'm not inferring anything, you said "Parker and Wells have an emphatic interest in him doing well" as in emphatically more than other players in the squad.
Perhaps I'm wrong and if so I apologise, but it did seem clear as day to me.

I emphasised their interest since they mentored/were involved with Onomah at Spurs and that probably influenced our signing of him.  That naturally gives them a continuing interest and reason for mentoring the lad here but in the first team?  My point is 'are they the best guides for him with a midfield that has at times stunned us (with Onomah or without him), but then stuttered and stalled' ... throughout this season?  They may be too close to the lad since both Parker's and Wells's roles are different here - this is a first team football and not a youth squad.  R Sessegnon was noted to be SJ's pet (Cairney comment last season) because he was nurtured and cared for as a bright young FFC prospect for a long time to come and we lost him because of last season's fiasco.  Reverse psychology may be applied to Onomah since he can be seen as the hopeful replacement for our once bright star and  some redemption for getting last season so hopelessly wrong.     

The lad may be wasting a lot of his potential out there if he is not getting the right advice and guidance because Parker and Wells are guilty of naivety or inexperience or both?  I am trying to find a reason why, as I have said elsewhere, Onomah has been getting the nod over players who are potentially better by many measures because I feel Parker is over-complicating things

Nothing underhand implied.

Apology accepted.

Sorry to keep banging on about this, but you're saying nothing underhand implied but at the same time say that he's being put in the team ahead of potentially better players because of their (SP & MW) continuing interest in mentoring him? I may be missing the point but I just don't understand.

[toshes mate]

Sorry to keep banging on about this, but you're saying nothing underhand implied but at the same time say that he's being put in the team ahead of potentially better players because of their (SP & MW) continuing interest in mentoring him? I may be missing the point but I just don't understand.

You used two emotive words - nepotism and underhand - in order to make your point in your post.  You haven't explained where I used the word nepotism and you haven't explained where I said anything underhand. 

You may well be missing the point of your original post.

[millsy]

Actually, mine was the original post and it's fascinating to see a fairly broad range of opinions in response. Impressive also, that no ranting or name-calling but just reasoned views and opinions on a new, youngish player.

The concensus seems to be, however, that a) we have seen Josh improve significantly since his early poor performances and b) he is probably not yet one of our best 3 midfield starters, assuming everybody is fit.

For my part, based on his first handful of appearances, I felt Josh was a liability and should only start as a last resort. Thankfully, his improvement in fitness and performance have improved to such an extent that I no longer get a sinking feeling when he is named to start but I do still have severe misgivings about his onfield awareness and inability to put himself into positions where his teammates can easily find him.

In summary, for me, good progress but at this stage, still think we're more competitive with Harry Arter or Stefan in that third midfield slot.

[toshes mate]

Actually, mine was the original post ...

I was referring to Jim's first post just to be clear.

[AnOldBrownie]

The best thing for Josh is that he has found his position and isn't being moved all over the pitch as he was initially. He's looked better with game time in one role and is a valuable part of the squad now.

I don't think the last game was the best to judge him, or TC for that matter, as both are working their way back from time away/in and out of the team. Tonight may be a better example of seeing what he's made of.

Why not judge him by the last game? He finish his chances he's easily MOTM.

Sent from my CMR-W19 using Tapatalk

[Sting of the North]

The best thing for Josh is that he has found his position and isn't being moved all over the pitch as he was initially. He's looked better with game time in one role and is a valuable part of the squad now.

I don't think the last game was the best to judge him, or TC for that matter, as both are working their way back from time away/in and out of the team. Tonight may be a better example of seeing what he's made of.

Why not judge him by the last game? He finish his chances he's easily MOTM.

Sent from my CMR-W19 using Tapatalk

But he didn't, and he wasn't (at least not officially). I prefer to judge players on their performance, but surely missing a few sitters is not reflecting well in that regard even though it was good to get in the positions to begin with. He could and should have put the game to bed in the first half. Nevertheless, I thought he was quite good but not even top 5 in the team on the day. Scoring a few would likely have pushed him into the top 5, because again that is part of the performance.

In my opinion.

[AnOldBrownie]

The best thing for Josh is that he has found his position and isn't being moved all over the pitch as he was initially. He's looked better with game time in one role and is a valuable part of the squad now.

I don't think the last game was the best to judge him, or TC for that matter, as both are working their way back from time away/in and out of the team. Tonight may be a better example of seeing what he's made of.

Why not judge him by the last game? He finish his chances he's easily MOTM.

Sent from my CMR-W19 using Tapatalk

But he didn't, and he wasn't (at least not officially). I prefer to judge players on their performance, but surely missing a few sitters is not reflecting well in that regard even though it was good to get in the positions to begin with. He could and should have put the game to bed in the first half. Nevertheless, I thought he was quite good but not even top 5 in the team on the day. Scoring a few would likely have pushed him into the top 5, because again that is part of the performance.

In my opinion.

Well, since he's starting again we'll have another game to judge him.   

I think he's going to do well.  imho.