No one on the Davies side of the debate that I’ve seen here (apart from that posters father in law) thinks that Davies is definitely going to be an England international or anything like that (although there’s nothing to say he might not develop into one). The argument seems to be that he is a young player playing in a difficult position who seems to have impressed multiple managers and has the potential to improve as he is only 20. The other side of the argument claiming that he won’t make it as a premier league player and that he'll never be good enough is bizarre when he’s already played a season and a half in our first team in the premier league. I could buy an argument that says we need better, of course we do, Id love us to have an Arteta level first choice player for Davies to learn from, but to argue that he is not good enough for our squad or for the premier league is just over criticism for no real reason.
I think this is a really important point. Playing as a holding midfielder (not a 10 akin to Alli or Barkley where you get more freedom) is a very difficult position to master. You don't get many doing it at Davies's age. This isn't an opinion it's backed up by stats. I've seen people say he is "poor" given his age, yet when asked what average looks like, never mind good they cannot find a player at or around his age who is out performing him. It might just be that there is a dearth of young central midfield players, but more likely the PL is a very hard league for young players to excel in. Those caveats do need to be extended to Tom.
For me the two difficulties around Davies and those judging him stem from two areas. Firstly he is quite an unorthodox player. Secondly he's a lad who has a unique level of experience.
If we take the first point, I watched Davies and he reminded me of Gravesen the other day. He has unique skills in certain areas but weaknesses in others. You'd watch Gravesen some days and think what a player but other days he'd not do the simple things well or show positional discipline. I think Davies is similar to that.
The issue of the games you can take either way. Either he should be showing more noticeable improvement having racked up 70+ games. However most players with that level of experience are normally 22/23. Whether it is number of games, or age of the player that influences improvement is a hotly debated topic without a clear answer. In all likelihood a bit of both.
What I can't have though is the hyperbole on the "anti-Tom' side. I am pro tom but try to be as balanced as possible. However it does seem since the start of last season you've had people waiting to slaughter the lad for performances that in many cases were ok. They weren't brilliant or even good, but they were decent. We seem to struggle to say "he's done ok today". I think at some level unless he's brilliant people are cuing up to criticise him.
The best example is Bournemouth. Away from home, on a hot day, with 10 men he made 6 tackles, 3 intercepts and a clearance. These are not just decent stats but are exceptional numbers, even someone like Kante would be pretty pleased with them, It showed a maturity, a discipline and a level of improvement that many have been crying out for. He was playing in front of a back 4 who were backs to the wall and he broke play up very effectively.
On the other side you had a lad who's well over a year older than him, Lewis Cook who was a long long way off Davies's performance, yet he is being tipped as a future England International and could have gone to the World Cup. Yet Davies by many was heavily criticised for his performance and where he is at. If Cook is seen as the future of the England midfield, then Davies will be the next Gazza on that performance!
So I think people get carried away in their criticism. It often lacks any nuance, any reference to the way he has played or the wider stats that back this up. I think a layer of people want the lad to fail because it re-enforces their world view that lads like Hibbert and Osman are no longer viewed as solid dependable players who were cost effective but failures for who'm those building a balanced assessment are responsible for supporting.