• Current Donation Goals

JaneB

Chelsea 2 Sheffield United 0

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ham said:

The youth are getting better year on year because of the age appropriate training/coaching methods adopted in the past 10 years or so.

The very latest generation of youth are simply better in general than 10 years ago and it'll continue that way. 

Forget the past. Judge the latest kids on merit.

Use your eyes, not past stats. 

Well they certainly are at Chelsea, and that is probably true for England (or England settled) youth too.  
I'm not sure how that affects the loan or hold back discussion.

And I have raised this question before but people didn't seem to have a view.
Have recent crops been good because we have had excellent coaching starting as young as 8 years old?
Or is it because as one of the first clubs to offer a lot of coaching from 8 that we attracted a whole host of talent from across England and Europe?

And other clubs, who have copied our methods but just a year or two later, will they catch up?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ham said:

This whole discussion comes down to subjectively how good we all think Billy G is.

Is he a generational prodigious talent? I think he is and so I personally think he's good enough to stay and play in rotation with others.

His starting point, talent-wise, is insanely high.  His ceiling is stratospheric. 

If others disagree, so be it. 

I for one believe that you can be too good to loan out. 

There's an argument to be had that previously loaned out players have suffered as a result in terms of progression, hence why they never came back.  Subjective again but worth discussing.  

The whole point though, to me anyway, is that they need to be playing regular first team football.

The argument is not how good one player or another may be now or in the future its is said player better off going to the championship on loan and playing 50 odd games or spending a year here, training with the first team squad and getting the odd cup game?

I see the benefits of being with the first team, I really do but at such a young age I cannot for the life of me see how that is more beneficial than playing regular football.

And I'm not being funny but he can't even get in the Scotland squad so even they do not think he is that good or ready just yet. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, paulw66 said:

And which of your list were good enough?

Of course most who go out on loan dont ever make it. That's always been the case at every club forever and ever Amen that most youth products don't come through. Even if you take the recent success of Mount, CHO, James and Tomori, that means there are a dozen or so at that age group who didn't come through. Completely normal. 

Using Messi as an example is just, well.........ridiculous.

JT went out on loan. Lampard went out on loan (at WH). In fact, when was the last Chelsea product to make it through WITHOUT one? CHO is about to buck that trend, but generally a loan is the most sensible way to transition from boys football to mens.  

Using Messi as an example for just to show that "YOUTH DEVELOPMENT" does not equate with loans. I dont need to go to messi. I can take Rashford, TAA, SAKA and 100s more as very clear examples. 

Also, was Mount good enough? Did the fans think he was good enough? Did you read the social media drivel about him? I think Musonda, Boga showed far more in youth, so yes, they were as talented. Just probably lacked a manager who showed them the faith that Lampard showed to mount.

16 hours ago, paulw66 said:

Incredible maths.

There are literally dozens every year who don't get loaned out, they just get released. 

Dear God. Are all of those good enough? Are they given a shot? Dont try to take things out of context. The whole point of the discussion is that if the club deems that a player has the potential and the quality, then LOANING him out is not necessary. Go and read my posts before that where I say literally the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

Up there with the most ridiculous distortions of reality to justify an existing position I have ever read. Messi had an ability that absolutely demanded he played from a very young age (I expect he'd have been picked on talent even earlier if the growth hormones had kicked in earlier). Any manager at any club in the world would have picked him. 

Really weird that you'd compare other players to Messi ... To somehow defend them?! 

We have never had a player like Messi in our academy. No one has. Except the one that did.

Mate, Messi was supposed to be an exaggeration just to make a point to a person who deems it NECESSARY that loan is the only way to get a youth player developed. I dont need to take messi as an example. There are literally more than a squad full of top PL players who have made it without getting loaned out - SAKA, TAA, RICE, RASHFORD, SMITH-ROWE, CHO etc. 

Please understand the context in which it was written, as well as what was written before where I have said that developing a youth is not LOANING or NOT. Its a combination with no real 1 formula. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, didierforever said:

Mate, Messi was supposed to be an exaggeration just to make a point to a person who deems it NECESSARY that loan is the only way to get a youth player developed. I dont need to take messi as an example. There are literally more than a squad full of top PL players who have made it without getting loaned out - SAKA, TAA, RICE, RASHFORD, SMITH-ROWE, CHO etc. 

Can you name the others that make up this squad full or the hundreds that you claimed in a previous post? 

Also can you name another club that has the number or quality of youth team players that we have playing for us right now?

You may be able to get one player to a level without loaning them,  much like we have with CHO but do you really think the club should have kept James, Tammy, Mount and Tomori all at the same time? We would have been lucky to see one of them on the bench, at best.

We have a freak group of players that have come through at more or less the same time and there is absolutely no argument that what the club has done has worked, perfectly. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, didierforever said:

Mate, Messi was supposed to be an exaggeration just to make a point to a person who deems it NECESSARY that loan is the only way to get a youth player developed. I dont need to take messi as an example. There are literally more than a squad full of top PL players who have made it without getting loaned out - SAKA, TAA, RICE, RASHFORD, SMITH-ROWE, CHO etc. 

Please understand the context in which it was written, as well as what was written before where I have said that developing a youth is not LOANING or NOT. Its a combination with no real 1 formula. 

Literally no one thinks it is "NECESSARY", as some kind of infallible natural law of football, for young players to go on loan before playing senior football. What I'd imagine most would agree on is that young players of any starting ability need to play regular senior football to develop further. I also think everybody would accept sometimes young players are better than the senior players available to pick.

That is true of Messi, but also Saka, Alexander-Arnold, Rice, Rashford and Smith-Rowe. It isn't true of Gilmour. That's not a bad thing. It's better our senior players aren't so crap that the kids are a better bet, and a kid ready immediately to play senior football is so exceedingly rare that not being immediately ready would be an obscenely harsh criticism. 

 

Edited by thevelourfog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Martin1905 said:

Can you name the others that make up this squad full or the hundreds that you claimed in a previous post? 

Also can you name another club that has the number or quality of youth team players that we have playing for us right now?

You may be able to get one player to a level without loaning them,  much like we have with CHO but do you really think the club should have kept James, Tammy, Mount and Tomori all at the same time? We would have been lucky to see one of them on the bench, at best.

We have a freak group of players that have come through at more or less the same time and there is absolutely no argument that what the club has done has worked, perfectly. 

 

 

 

 

Off the top of my head - 92 class of United, the bayern team which had Muller, Kroos etc coming in, a lot of barca youth players that dominated the footballing world.

And this is just off the top of my head. 

Also, please go back and read my posts where I explicitly say that there are various ways to integrate youth including loans. But loan is not a NECESSITY. No one is saying is anjorin should not go out on loan, but if someone like Gilmour or mr. X is good enough, he does not need to go out, as simple as that. 

The example of messi, which has got everyone riled up for some reason was an exaggeration and thought it would be pretty obvious.

Just surprised the same amount of people are not getting all riled up where a poster said loan was the reason for KDB's success. The context of the initial argument was the necessity of loan. 

Are you really asking me to name all the hundreds of loaners that we have sent on loan? Seriously? 

As for squad full -

FWs - Rashford, saka, smith-rowe, Greenwood, CHO

Mid - Foden, rice, Curtis Jones, Tom davies, Scott mctominay

Lamptey, taa, Joe gomez, holgate, luke Shaw, wan bissaka, 

I mean these are out of the top of my head that I don't think ever went on loan.  If you need more I can surely Google and get back to you. 

Hell, I would even put harry kane, possibly one of the best ever PL strikers as a success story of trust integration as his loan spells were really poor. Not to forget players likr vardy who I think never went on a loan. So I think, there are hell, more than enough examples

 

Edited by didierforever
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
53 minutes ago, didierforever said:

 

Hell, I would even put harry kane, possibly one of the best ever PL strikers as a success story of trust integration as his loan spells were really poor. Not to forget players likr vardy who I think never went on a loan. So I think, there are hell, more than enough examples

 

So Harry Kane counts as someone who hadn't gone out on loan, despite having about six loans? 

And Vardy didn't play top flight football until he was 27

Bizarre examples. You've lost yourself 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

So Harry Kane counts as someone who hadn't gone out on loan, despite having about six loans? 

And Vardy didn't play top flight football until he was 27

Bizarre examples. You've lost yourself 

Do you just read the first word and then leave the rest? Nothing about trust integration on there?

Also, funny how you just quote what suits your agenda even if it's something written as a footnote on edition but nothing about the whole other gist. Whatever floats your boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
15 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

So Harry Kane counts as someone who hadn't gone out on loan, despite having about six loans? 

And Vardy didn't play top flight football until he was 27

Bizarre examples. You've lost yourself 

That's all you pick up on from the entire post? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.