• Current Donation Goals

JaneB

Chelsea 2 Sheffield United 0

Recommended Posts

Ham   
6 hours ago, Martin1905 said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think this is a freak scenario. I think this is the future, the norm, in England thanks to better coaching from tiny kids upwards. It started with this generation of young pros. 

Coaching is better than it has ever been and young players are getting better.

 

Share this post


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

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

More than I did.
 

1 hour ago, didierforever said:

trust integration

No idea what you mean by trust integration.
If you mean that managers have to pick players and trust they will perform because somehow the player will react to that positively, why does that apply to young players and not old, Academy players and not bought players?  Every game we leave about 10 internationals on the bench or not even on it.

Are you suggesting we should cut down to 14 man squads and trust?

59 minutes ago, Ham said:

I don't think this is a freak scenario. I think this is the future, the norm, in England thanks to better coaching from tiny kids upwards. It started with this generation of young pros. 

Coaching is better than it has ever been and young players are getting better.

So either the process continues and squads will get younger and younger until anyone who was not coached in UK or is over 25 will no longer get a place in a PL team,

or we go back to normal where it remains incredibly hard for young players to break into PL squads because they are full of other excellently trained players.

And either way it is still a freak scenario where one PL club can introduce 4 players at the same time.

 

I think we will find that our secret was not the 8-16 coaching, but simply getting the most ambitious and supportive parents in S England to drive their kids to Cobham on a regular basis so getting a self-selected superior group to train.  IMO.  But it is an interesting topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

No idea what you mean by trust integration.

If you mean that managers have to pick players and trust they will perform because somehow the player will react to that positively, why does that apply to young players and not old, Academy players and not bought players?  Every game we leave about 10 internationals on the bench or not even on it.

Are you suggesting we should cut down to 14 man squads and trust?

😂😂

Dear god.

What I meant was finding youth that you know are quality, deal with their inconsistencies and trust them to come good.

Reece and mount both had periods in which they looked really poor. Yet, the manager trusted their talent and quality over the form. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, didierforever said:

😂😂

Dear god.

What I meant was finding youth that you know are quality, deal with their inconsistencies and trust them to come good.

Reece and mount both had periods in which they looked really poor. Yet, the manager trusted their talent and quality over the form. 

I like a bit of respect, but Dear God is going a bit far.  Hi will do.
You seem to be saying that we should make decisions on players when they are 18 or so and then play them until they come right.

Why not just send them on loan for two years and play them when they come back, with equal confidence that they will be good enough, but giving us time to change our mind if they are Morris not Lampard or Huth and not JT, and giving them 70 odd starts to improve them.

 

Of course the manager was willing to back James and Mount if he had any doubts - they had a season in the Championship to demonstrate what they could do on a consistent basis.

Does trust integration apply to Havertz and Kepa?  Emerson and Zappacosta?  Morata?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

I like a bit of respect, but Dear God is going a bit far.  Hi will do.
You seem to be saying that we should make decisions on players when they are 18 or so and then play them until they come right.

Why not just send them on loan for two years and play them when they come back, with equal confidence that they will be good enough, but giving us time to change our mind if they are Morris not Lampard or Huth and not JT, and giving them 70 odd starts to improve them.

 

Of course the manager was willing to back James and Mount if he had any doubts - they had a season in the Championship to demonstrate what they could do on a consistent basis.

Does trust integration apply to Havertz and Kepa?  Emerson and Zappacosta?  Morata?
 

Because on a loan there are a lot of things that can go wrong. You are asking an 18 year old to leave his family, his support system, get integrated in a completely new environment, an environment which might not even have his best interest in actually developing him, in case he is struggling. I mean, what exactly is Gallagher learning under Sam Allardyce playing hoof ball football. Defending for 70 mins and hoping for a counter. 

I feel, the actual quality and talent of most youngsters are pretty evident. No one expected or expects kylian hazard or Kenneth omerou to be world class or even top players.

Those few youngsters who do show exceptional talent have to be/can easily be given a chance as a 4th choice winger/4th choice CB etc etc, gelled in with the team. And why not? What is the point of a 35m Drinkwater and 40m bakayoko when we know for a fact that they won't be challenging for the first team and will always be squad players. We can always have a strong core of 18-20 players supported by upcoming youth. Even from a business perspective it makes far more sense as the returns from those youth players coming good far outweigh the output we get from the likes of baka, Drinkwater etc. 

Loans obviously play an important role too, specially when game time is an issue, but I have to believe, and with good reason, that the players would be learning better things from world class managers like tuchel, Conte etc than under Sam Allardyce. 

As for your last question:

What is return that we are going to get out of zappacoata or Emerson? Are they going ro be world class or top players if given an opportunity? Compare them with RJ, and look at rhe sheer difference in talent. RJ is already a betrer player than Zappa will ever be, and that should have been pretty evident to anyone who actually saw him in our youth teams.

 

My point is as simple as this, why waste mega millions on some one like Zappa when we had someone like RJ. Why send him on loan at that point of time. 

Now let's take anjorin, the guy is obviously talented, but we have mount, Kai, ziyech. Even puli is more of a CAM than an out an out winger. We have such a massive depth of talent, that getting him some gametime is impossible. Loan in this case is perfectly valid. 

And this is my whole point. There is no one way to the process. No one formula. It should be case by case and situation to situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chara   

Good points Droy but loans,whilst part of the process. are not the be all and end all of a player's progress paths....certainly your point illustrated by the Morris/Lampard Huth/Terry examples is extremely valid and is an important PART of the issues.

The integration of Mount etc?......well in all fairness Frank had little option and he was "lucky" to have those options.

Without resorting to stats it is clear that cream usually rises to the top whichever route is followed....the lower leagues are littered with journeyman players who were loaned out and didn't make the grade,for whatever reason, from all top clubs. The "meat grinder" syndrom I alluded to elsewhere.

 

Share this post


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

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

What I took was "what the hell is trust integration?". I already struggle with xG.

What this while discussion lacks, imo, is anyone saying Gilmour should be getting picked over Kante, Jorginho and/or Kovacic ... At least one of who themselves doesn't get picked each game. If anyone thinks that ... Well, good luck to them, it's a not an opinion I think you could back up with anything beyond "that's just my opinion", but at least it is an opinion. Because if you don't think Gilmour should be getting picked over at least one of them, but also don't think he should go on loan ... Then I'm not sure what it is you want for him.

And, tbf, it is odd to name Lionel Messi, Jamie Vardy and Harry bloody Kane to argue against loans ... And especially to do it to argue, with absolutely no one but yourself, against loans being somehow compulsory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
34 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

What I took was "what the hell is trust integration?". I already struggle with xG.

What this while discussion lacks, imo, is anyone saying Gilmour should be getting picked over Kante, Jorginho and/or Kovacic ... At least one of who themselves doesn't get picked each game. If anyone thinks that ... Well, good luck to them, it's a not an opinion I think you could back up with anything beyond "that's just my opinion", but at least it is an opinion. Because if you don't think Gilmour should be getting picked over at least one of them, but also don't think he should go on loan ... Then I'm not sure what it is you want for him.

And, tbf, it is odd to name Lionel Messi, Jamie Vardy and Harry bloody Kane to argue against loans ... And especially to do it to argue, with absolutely no one but yourself, against loans being somehow compulsory.

The argument DF and myself have been making is that game time elsewhere on loan isn't necessarily a good thing for all youngsters.

Some might thrive but some might actually lose confidence, get injured by cloggers or pick up bad habits from inferior players and coaches. 

Football is a funny old game and so whilst Kovacic, Jorginho and Kante are playing well currently they're all capable of dropping off (we've seen their worst) and getting replaced by a truly brilliant kid.  Look at the squillion pound players Foden is challenging/replacing.....

There really is no point yourself, Droy, Martin and Paul trying to convince me I'm wrong because I see BG's future differently to you all. 

I'd prefer we all agreed that we don't know for a fact what's best for BG and that what will be will be. 

Edited by Ham

Share this post


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

The argument DF and myself have been making is that game time elsewhere on loan isn't necessarily a good thing for all youngsters.

Some might thrive but some might actually lose confidence, get injured by cloggers or pick up bad habits from inferior players and coaches. 

Football is a funny old game and so whilst Kovacic, Jorginho and Kante are playing well currently they're all capable of dropping off (we've seen their worst) and getting replaced by a truly brilliant kid.  Look at the squillion pound players Foden is challenging/replacing.....

There really is no point yourself, Droy, Martin and Paul trying to convince me I'm wrong because I see BG's future differently to you all. 

I'd prefer we all agreed that we don't know for a fact what's best for BG and that what will be will be. 

Diplomatic of you, but I think DF is having a different argument.

It is fair enough to say none of us really know what will be for the best. What is easier, I think,  is knowing what isn't best for any footballer; not playing. My opinion extends as far as Billy needs to be playing regular football to become all he can be. I personally can't see it happening here any time soon, so I'm pro-loan. 

But yes, opinions made clear on that and I'll bow out. It's the idea Harry Kane is evidence against loaning that might reel me back in ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
5 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

Diplomatic of you, but I think DF is having a different argument.

It is fair enough to say none of us really know what will be for the best. What is easier, I think,  is knowing what isn't best for any footballer; not playing. My opinion extends as far as Billy needs to be playing regular football to become all he can be. I personally can't see it happening here any time soon, so I'm pro-loan. 

But yes, opinions made clear on that and I'll bow out. It's the idea Harry Kane is evidence against loaning that might reel me back in ... 

I think DF's point was that Kane's loan record was very very average. 

He did nothing until he came back to Spurs. 

Share this post


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