Discussion in 'Soccer' started by Halladay, Jan 28, 2019.
I really like Foyth. Incredibly "smooth" for a centre-half. Didn't watch his games for Argentina but he was MOTM in his debut.
Here's to hoping that he doesn't have too many Chiriches moments because of his overconfidence.
Well, Sarri won't get much improvement or it's not going to be a desirable job for a replacement.
An appeal should allow for transfers this summer though, so should be busy.
Obviously Pulisic, but would finally be nice to integrate guys like Abraham, Mount, James, Hudson-Odoi, Loftus-Cheek, Ampadu. That's the silver linging. Use the appeal to upgrade some of the starting 11, and have youth take up the depth and get more minutes.
You mean use the appeal time to buy 6 more 29 year old players and then continue to let the young players rot until they leave...right?
That is the Chelsea method.
The way I envision it, Hazard forces his move and between that and the ban, teams will demand crazy high prices, so we really won't buy too much quantity, and that'll leave minutes for some of the youth. Worst case is the above, teams demand high prices and we panic and overpay for Drinkwater and Zappacosta types. Best case, this move forces us to use Hudson-Odoi and it convinces him to stay.
For the life of me, I don't understand kids who sign with that club.
Money. We also don't really sign any of the star young players. Lukaku was someone a lot of teams wanted, but even De Bruyne and Salah were under the radar. None of the real youth players have become much when they moved elsewhere.
They get to play for a top club, get loaned out, play well, and then make a move. It's not like Chelsea is signing them to a 6 year deal when they're 20 and letting them rot their careers away.
The reason for them not becoming much is because they were moved away from a nurturing environment and moved around Europe without any plan or method to the madness. It's just people around those kids being greedy as hell and ruining the kid's career before it ever started, completely missing out on the big picture. Stay with your parent club, then move to a mid-table club in say Germany (like Eintracht or something liek that) and prove your worth there. Modrić did it right, Rakitić did it right, Pjaca messed it up, so did Kovačić, Rebić almost ruined his career because he moved to Fiorentina before he was ready, Halilović messed it up, and then you have pašalić and Delač who were both ruined by Chelsea loaning them left and right ...
This might be the case sometimes, and a lot of times, the players just aren't as good as their potential indicated at an earlier age. A lot of Chelsea's loans are to stable places that matches their ability level, Lukaku, De Bruyne, Salah, Courtois, and Christensen all developed successfully in it. Van Ginkel was making his way to a successful career before injuries hit again. And then you have guys like Bertrand Traore, and while he didn't fail, he was definitely overhyped.
Kakuta was widely considered as the class of his birth year.
I saw him play at 17. Then I saw him play at 19. Not only he didn't progress at all, but he regressed. That's what moving from Lens to Chelsea's loaning teams did to him.
There are many reasons for why youth don't progress though or regress. Yes, limited playing time is an issue, but there are plenty of fail even though they are giving plenty of time in a good situation.
For the record, I wouldn't advise a youth to go to Chelsea, but we shouldn't act like all of the failed youth that went to Chelsea would've fulfilled their potential if they went elsewhere.
Not sure how much credit Chelsea can get for players like Lukaku, Salah and KDB.
I remember Salah from Basel when Spurs played them in the EL. Rarely do you thing “who is this” when you are playing a “small” club in the EL, but then I did. Could just as well argue he would have been even better if Chelsea didn’t buy him.
Similar story with Lukaku and KDB.
Considering the “scattergun”’approach from Chelsea I think the success rate is ridiculously low.
It is their way though. And that part of isn’t illegal so I don’t mind, but unless they are making money from it then it can hardly be said to be successful (strangely enough many of these “failed” youngsters still get bought by smaller teams for surprisingly high fees. I know Spurs best and they have sold so many decent, but not good players for astronomical fees).
I'm not giving Chelsea credit for it, just that the loan system doesn't automatically ruin a career like some imply. What I'm saying is, Chelsea signs as many youth as possible and most will fail because most players don't become stars. Since Chelsea aren't known for developing youth, they usually aren't signing the top youth players that will develop into stars.
The loan system worked great for many of those players. Salah had 1 "lost" season with 501 minutes of Premier League time, not counting cup time. De Bruyne never had a lost season. Lukaku had a lost season in 11/12. Besides that, those players never had a negative year on their development.
The loan system is more of a revenue generator and FFP compliance tool than a development tool for the senior squad.
I actually admire Chelsea scouting network.
They discovered/recruited some of the best talent in the world with Salah, De bruyne, Courtois, Lukaku, Christensen.
That being said, I don't like at all how thet develop their players and from memory the only young player they played with the first team in a key role was Eden Hazard. All the other were not given a key role and eventually moved out by loan.
The last part of it is my take as well.
You might argue they didn’t have any “lost seasons”, but compared to what? All of those players could have been playing in vital roles for a good first team somewhere instead. Don’t get me wrong. All teams do that (picking up players that might have developed better at a different team), but none are as extreme as Chelsea.
To me they are ruining careers, but I don’t blame Chelsea for that. It is up to the players if they want to be part of what is generally speaking not producing much other than maybe profits for Chelsea.
They were playing for vital roles on good teams. Courtois at Atletico, Lukaku at West Brom and Everton, De Bruyne at Werder Bremen, Salah at Fiorentina and Roma.
Hazard and Oscar were given big roles early, Hazard was already sort of proven though. De Bruyne was the one that hurt because he was given time early in the season and then Mourinho ruined it.
Chelsea's youth policy is to make money off the youth players to pay back Abramovich's loan to the club.
A couple of those were very highly touted young players before Chelsea bought them. Lukaku especially had little to do with scouting. Courtois
the same. I can’t remember Christensen, but Salah and De Bruyne were hardly unknowns either. Difference was some years ago Chelsea was among “the” clubs to go to. Probably not true in the same way today.
And you are kind of bound to hit something when you buy as many as they do. I mean at the time Cuortois was bought that sum would be considered a fairly big investment for many even mid level PL teams. Buy 50 of those (I’m exaggerating) and something got to work out. It’s a bit like having 15 2nd round picks every year.
You can take Lukaku back. Discount rate. Transfer ban special, everything must go!
Courtois I agree. Obviously I don’t know the inner workings here, but he seemed to be groomed by Chelsea for a role at Chelsea.
The rest seems just as random as all the other players Chelsea send out. Some will swim because they are just that talented.
Anyway. We seem to agree. I don’t think loaning players out like that will ruin every career. And it doesn’t seem like you think it is a very good idea for developing them either.
Salah, De Bruyne, and Courtois were pretty much unknowns. They were discovered by scouts and convinced to buy when we played against them in Europe. Prices were a bit lower back then, but none of them cost that much, Lukaku was the only one with real competition and a bidding war.
Separate names with a comma.