• Current Donation Goals

Boogle

Chelsea Reserve & Youth Team

Recommended Posts

The question in my opinion is Why are our 18 & 19 years olds not good enough? The club need to make a list of the possible reasons and take things from there. But I think it will be a failure of a significant scale if we can't get players through the academy into the first team with the resources that have been poured into the project in recent years.

It's not an easy thing to get right. How many players at top clubs come all the way though their youth ranks? Even our (previous) policy of signing promising 16 year olds and attempting to develop them into top players rarely works for anyone. Very rarely do you get a large 'batch' of youth players coming from one club and all making it at the top level.

I think that now the club have realised that throwing money at youth development doesn't automatically produce a higher percentage of top players.

From the looks of this year's intake we're going to have a lot more 'local lads' that come through the whole system and aren't signed expensively from other places. This may be augmented by the occasional overseas player (Prosenik) but it seems a more sensible and cost-effective approach. Why spend £5M on a young player when there's an overwhelming likelihood that he won't make it?

Of course, the fact that our first team managers have rarely been disposed to, or in a position to take a punt on a youngster plays a part. Seemingly only those with little to lose or complete job security do as such.

I think it's difficult to say what the issue is with Nouble leaving

1. Was he just not good enough?

2. Is the coaching system and environment at Cobham not good enough? (unlikely)

3. Were the first team staff to blame for not giving him a chance?

As a club right at the top in world football we have to accept that even fewer players will make it through our academy and into the first team than at smaller clubs.

So 10 players make it though Middlesbrough's academy and into their squad, would those same 10 players make it into the Chelsea squad? No. So is Middlesbrough's academy better than Chelsea's? No.

In normal circumstances if we produce one top class player every 10 years our academy is doing enough. Though the stupid sums wasted by FA on young players in the last few years could have been better spent elsewhere. Much better to use the traditional local scouting system and hope that our first team situation evolves to allow greater involvement for those youngsters that deserve it.

I'd much rather spend £5M on a 19 year old ready to straight into the first team squad than £2M on a 16 year old who we'll probably end up releasing after 5 years and three loans spells.

Edited by chiswickblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hanuma   
makes it easier for us to statistically say since there are only a few, thaen there wouldnt be many in the academy good enough.
We don't need outside facts to tell us that, we can see that fairly obviously for ourselves, the point is we should be reassured by the generally low success rate, instead of abusing the club for not achieving the impossible.

The issue of 'just give them a chance' is always predicated on some assumption that playing for the first team will transform a player thus undermining a system of getting there on merit.

surely the objective should be to get them into the squad to take players squad places like ferreria, belletti and pizzaro?
That is an objective, but it's arguably harder than getting a player straight into the first team because young players are impatient. But it's also problematic for the development of several players, who simply need games to improve in order to be reliable enough for Chelsea to call on them in the first place. It's a simple paradox in the sense that players can't be good squad players for us by being squad players for us. That is why we loan them out.
22 I think the golden age when a player either shows the ability or doesn't. how many players are willing to wait till 22 to get their chance at the first team?
Generally agreed, but I'd be concerned with any suggestion that we simply couldn't see or predict what a player was going to be like before the age of 22.
I'd much rather spend £5M on a 19 year old ready to straight into the first team squad than £2M on a 16 year old who we'll probably end up releasing after 5 years and three loans spells.
Spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ish   

di santo and sturridge were both bought with mind to the first team. Di santo got a couple of shots last season and I expect that number to go up. Sturridge is the same, he wont step up yet but will get first team appearances. Stoch is talented as well and he is being given that loan because chelsea expect much from him, same goes for kakuta and mellis. Of the younger chelsea players like bertrand, cork and woods they are slowly going to be transitioned in like mancienne was, either they step up and become solid squad players and then get further or they get sold.

Player deserve to be given a "chance" on merit, thats what happened to sturridge, di santo, sinclair, stoch and mancienne. They all performed better then average at one point and were given first team oppurtunities. The "chance" needs to be evaluated by the club on their ability. For instance arsenal play's youth in the Carling Cup, but then you look at who plays and its basically their second team, they have no depth which is what costs them. ManU play a mixture and do well, chelsea needs to do this but chelsea's promising players are usually on loan somewhere getting game time and experience. The amount of league games cork, bertrand, sinclair and mancienne have played by now must be collectively over 100. Compare that to the scant games in a normal reserve fixture and it shows why chelsea loan em out, they are too good for the reserves and need regular game time to hone the skills they learnt at chelsea. They wont get a chance in the first team so they get a chance else where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChelC   
So 10 players make it though Middlesbrough's academy and into their squad, would those same 10 players make it into the Chelsea squad? No. So is Middlesbrough's academy better than Chelsea's? No.

I'd much rather spend £5M on a 19 year old ready to straight into the first team squad than £2M on a 16 year old who we'll probably end up releasing after 5 years and three loans spells.

I would have to say despite that , it would still mean middlesborough academy is better than ours simply because they achieve their objectives while we fail at ours.

look at it this way, A middlewieght boxer who holds the world title at his weight level would be regarded in a better light than an heavyweight who has not been able to get anywhere near a world title at his weight.

We shouldn't be aiming for academy players that are good enough for middlesborough we should be aiming for players that will be good enough for us.

Its not impossible to do at our level of football, especially after the outlay that we have put towards achieving that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hanuma   
they achieve their objectives while we fail at ours.
Well that really depends on what our objective is, and I imagine it's nowhere near as ambitious as most fans on here seem to think.
Its not impossible to do at our level of football, especially after the outlay that we have put towards achieving that .
Where's the precedent? (let alone the basic logic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ish   

comparing boxers to clubs is just silly. For 1 a world class boxer at his wieght is world class due to physical limitations and other things.

A better comparison is perhaps to do sifting for gold. Both chelsea and middlesborough use the same pool, chelsea has a bigger sift but the holes are much wider. Middlesborough has a smaller sift but the holes are much smaller. Middlesborough will find more gold in total and even land a big nugget sometimes. Chelsea on the other hand will not pick up the smaller gold but pick up the big nuggets, since the sift is bigger they have a bettr chance of getting bigger pieces of gold. Middlesborough might get 1 great player and 10 average players for their one year of sifting. For them its a good year because those average players are still good enough to improve the team and that great player really improves them.

For chelsea they might get 2 great players and they let the average ones fall through the cracks. For chelsea those average players just lower the ability of the squad but those 2 great players make up for all the average players thrown away,

Who gets the better deal? They both do because each has different objectives. For middlesborough those players might make them get 8th place, would you want 8th place as a chelsea fan? No you expect at least top 4 as a minimum with 1st as a good bet. The players that fall through the sift fall through because they are not worth chelsea's time, 1 or 2 big nuggets would improve chelsea more then 100 average players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChelC   
comparing boxers to clubs is just silly. For 1 a world class boxer at his wieght is world class due to physical limitations and other things.

A better comparison is perhaps to do sifting for gold. Both chelsea and middlesborough use the same pool, chelsea has a bigger sift but the holes are much wider. Middlesborough has a smaller sift but the holes are much smaller. Middlesborough will find more gold in total and even land a big nugget sometimes. Chelsea on the other hand will not pick up the smaller gold but pick up the big nuggets, since the sift is bigger they have a bettr chance of getting bigger pieces of gold. Middlesborough might get 1 great player and 10 average players for their one year of sifting. For them its a good year because those average players are still good enough to improve the team and that great player really improves them.

For chelsea they might get 2 great players and they let the average ones fall through the cracks. For chelsea those average players just lower the ability of the squad but those 2 great players make up for all the average players thrown away,

Who gets the better deal? They both do because each has different objectives. For middlesborough those players might make them get 8th place, would you want 8th place as a chelsea fan? No you expect at least top 4 as a minimum with 1st as a good bet. The players that fall through the sift fall through because they are not worth chelsea's time, 1 or 2 big nuggets would improve chelsea more then 100 average players.

Shifting for gold?

The boxer comparison is simple. if we compare those so called physical limitations to financial ones you will see the light. A middleweight boxer is at that level because he weighs a certain amount. Compare the weight to finacial power and you will see what I am on about.

your comparison is unneccesary complicated. long winded and makes no clear sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hanuma   
A middleweight boxer is at that level because he weighs a certain amount. Compare the weight to finacial power and you will see what I am on about.

Neither analogy is entirely accurate, or even necessary, although 'ish' is correct to say Chelsea are not looking for 'average sized nuggets'... Chelsea and Boro are not bidding in different markets at the youth level and the chances of finding top class talent are the same for all clubs...slim. But perhaps it's worth going back to LazyDude's suggestion on the previous page that the most relevant question is how we 'develop' that talent. I simply don't believe in a policy of turd-polishing and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that the current system (the same at Chelsea as anywhere else) simply couldn't allow for the top class players to prove their potential.

Edited by hanuma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChelC   
Neither analogy is entirely accurate, or even necessary, although 'ish' is correct to say Chelsea are not looking for 'average sized nuggets'... Chelsea and Boro are not bidding in different markets at the youth level and the chances of finding top class talent are the same for all clubs...slim. But perhaps it's worth going back to LazyDude's suggestion on the previous page that the most relevant question is how we 'develop' that talent. I simply don't believe in a policy of turd-polishing and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that the current system (the same at Chelsea as anywhere else) simply couldn't allow for the top class players to prove their potential.

analogys are never meant to be accurate as far as I know. my transferring of the situation to the boxing analogy is just to show that, we will be able to conclude that Middlesborough are being succesful at their efforts if they bring 10 youngsters through their academy while we will be failing if we can't bring 2 through.

while I totally agree that 10 academy graduates at middlesborough might not neccesary be good enough for chelsea,HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if we can't produce 1 that is good enough for us then they would have been more succesful than us.

At end of the day we and other clubs will have targets for the acdemy and I am sure they differ. We have better resources for better targets but face bigger challenges. Middlesborough are no better off than we are because they have less resources for lesser targets and face lesser challenges.

lazydude is definetely right with his suggestion and that question is one of the questions that arise from us asking the question Why are our academy players not good enough?

Is it how we develop them?

What quality players we get in?

Where we get them from?

What our expectations of them are?

What chances they have?

amongst many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now