He might start doing that at Chelsea but his record is very poor at Juventus when it comes to promoting players from academy. Not that it's important at highest level.
Chelsea 2016/17 - Very Content
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
whats his record at Utd this season for the PL in promoting youths, the ones that havent had a chance before?
I guess work like signing an unproven Pogba and playing him regularly or bringing out the best in young Bonucci counts for nothing because he didn't bring players like that straight from Juve's academy?
Now, now, let's not use logic here. Playing Lingard and Rashford who were already regulars is somehow a feather on Jose's cap. Don't ask me how.
In PL? 0. Overall? 2.
Aren't we talking about Chelsea's academy?
In his second term Jose gave debut to John Swift, Christensen, Isaiah Brown, RLC, Traore.
It's not Jose's fault that Chelsea are piss poor at promoting young players to first team. Every time a new manager is appointed there is always talk about how young players will be promoted and end up doing nothing.
Last edited:
So playing 19 year old is praise worth but playing Rashford who was 18 at the start of the season is just playing players who are already regular. Great logic.
We are talking about youth academy, not sure what 23 year old Bonucci has anything to do with it.
Wasn't Rashford already a regular as of last season? Or what exactly are you trying to argue?
And Bonucci only joined the previous season when they finished 7th. So I'm not sure why you think that's not relevant.
Over the last 5-8 years how many academy players have clubs like Bayern, Real, Juve, etc brought through their academies? When we talk about Jose selling off Lukaku and De Bruyne, you think we don't know they aren't actually academy graduates? If you limit it to just academy graduates, you'll find that most of Europe's top 10 clubs (except Barca, Dortmund and Arsenal) have similar records to Chelsea. A discussion on young players isn't just discussions about those that joined the club at age 8. If you sign a player at 15-18 it also counts.
Funny that you brush aside Pogba's development under Conte as "playing a 19 year old" like Conte wasn't instrumental to the lad's development and confidence. He signed him when Fergie neglected him. Fergie of all people who has a great record with youth. How's that? But aye, it doesn't count because Pogba hasn't graduated from Juve's academy. Amazing.
Isn't this argument was about promoting players from academy? When you have to ignore 18 year old Rashford playing games then surely Pogba as a 19 year old shouldn't be considered. Also he is not promoted from academy which was the point.
So saying Conte improved Bonucci, had confidence in Pogba is all good but doesn't fit the argument here.
Funny how saying "Conte doesn't promote from academy" makes you bring clubs like Bayern, Real, Juve into the equation when the same point was used against Jose for years. Finally you have come to the point, many big clubs don't take the risk of promoting players. It's very very difficult at highest level. Chelsea haven't promoted any first team player before Jose or after Jose. So saying "Jose is the reason for not promoting from academy" is plainly wrong which some Chelsea fan posted.
I think for Conte an ideal player would also work very hard for the team, something Costa has in spades. Even if he isn't having a productive day in front of goals, Costa is a willing runner. That more than anything else used to be my biggest gripe about Lukaku, he's incredibly static when the team doesn't have the ball (and sometimes even when they do) and I find that very frustrating to watch. But I haven't seen much of him this season (well I'm assuming compared to others here), is he still the same or has he improved on his work rate?
Before the "job of a striker is to bang in the goals" comments come, I appreciate he's a great goalscorer but with Hazard who is already not so urgent in defending, having another player in that ilk would ruin a lot of the pressing.
Before the "job of a striker is to bang in the goals" comments come, I appreciate he's a great goalscorer but with Hazard who is already not so urgent in defending, having another player in that ilk would ruin a lot of the pressing.
Here's the point: Rashford became a regular under Van Gaal and so did Lingard. They're first team players today because of Van Gaal. I don't think any United fan can dispute that fact.
Fair enough. I'm talking about a larger argument of playing young players and you're talking about just academy graduates, I guess. So maybe that was my mistake. Go on then.
Who used the argument against Jose? Me? Stop it with the generalizing. I've bent over and twisted myself in a knot defending Jose's youth policy over the years when opposition fans slagged him off and I'm not going to be a hypocrite now. Go ahead and find a post where I've slagged him off for it if you can. He doesn't have a good record with youth but it's not non existent either. But I won't go into that.
Maybe stop seeing Chelsea fans as a monolith? The opinion of one Chelsea fan isn't necessarily the same as the opinion of another.
Did I say you? No. I said some Chelsea fan and I wasn't arguing with you alone.
Also wasn't you the one who made this sarcastic post:
Now, now, let's not use logic here. Playing Lingard and Rashford who were already regulars is somehow a feather on Jose's cap. Don't ask me how.
And then went on using Pogba, Bonucci as some sort of defense against Conte?
The point was about promoting players from academy and that's what my initial point was about Conte as his record is very poor.Not sure why you brought Pogba, Rashford, Lingard, Bonucci into the argument.
How does that change what I said? Lingard and Rashford aren't Jose's achievements. Simple.
You said "Conte's record at Juve was poor" or something like that and I responded. Simple.
For what it's worth, I think that argument isn't deep enough. Players like Courtois whom we bought as a teenager from Belgium are also young players you have to give a chance. We'll see how next season goes though. If only we hadn't foolishly sold Bertrand, he'd be playing in Alonso's position right now. But I have high hopes for Chalobah.
Yes, the post I quoted was about youth academy and Conte's record is poor.
If we are talking about young players then it's a completely different argument and the list will be completely different. I know there is lot of optimism about Conte but the only young player he played regularly was Pogba in 3 years at Juventus, even this season the youngest outfield player who is regular is Kante (25).
Considering the youth system at Chelsea when Abramovich first came was virtually non existent and miles behind what many clubs ( even just around London ) had to where it is now is like night and day.
Possibly the best and most successful academy presently in England with regards to results and players who go on to have a good career out of the game. Chelsea like a player (when he is around 17-19) to go out on loan for day in day out proper match squad experience ..... this in the last couple of years has started to bear fruit with the 10 year plan which took 13/14 proving itself.
A survey on youth acadamies at the top of the game was taken some years back and one of the conclusions was that to get 1 possibly 2 youth players come through and join your 1st team squad as a regular every 2/3 years is the aim of success. Chelsea are not far off that.
Other clubs do it differently...their choice but to call Chelsea's record at youth level 'shambolic' is totally off the mark. A lot of those boys who were not quite up to the mark have received a terrific education both on and off the pitch and have great careers at the next couple of levels of clubs .... doubt that would have happened if they didnt have the Chelsea name behind them.
Possibly the best and most successful academy presently in England with regards to results and players who go on to have a good career out of the game. Chelsea like a player (when he is around 17-19) to go out on loan for day in day out proper match squad experience ..... this in the last couple of years has started to bear fruit with the 10 year plan which took 13/14 proving itself.
A survey on youth acadamies at the top of the game was taken some years back and one of the conclusions was that to get 1 possibly 2 youth players come through and join your 1st team squad as a regular every 2/3 years is the aim of success. Chelsea are not far off that.
Other clubs do it differently...their choice but to call Chelsea's record at youth level 'shambolic' is totally off the mark. A lot of those boys who were not quite up to the mark have received a terrific education both on and off the pitch and have great careers at the next couple of levels of clubs .... doubt that would have happened if they didnt have the Chelsea name behind them.
Many good posts here. Chelsea aren't interested in youth development and it wasn't all just down to Jose. They sold Sturridge, Romeu, Carlton Cole, Sinclair, and a young Matic, while Jose wasn't their manager. Their brightest prospect currently is Ruben Loftus-Cheek who has hardly played at all this season.
Exactly. The long term plan is something some of us have been waiting eagerly to see if it pays off. At the moment aside from the main group, we have a handful of talents in Ake, RLC and Chalobah who are at the point where they actually could finally break through and become first team regulars. If a couple of them make it, then the plan has worked. If none of them do, then we've still got a way to go.
if they are not interested in youth development then why have they spend millions on it and loads of youngster have gone on to have good careers?
Chelsea invested a huge amount of time and money in their 10 year plan to build the worlds best academy system. To say we 'aren't interested in youth development' is just stupid. Quite why you'd pick Romeu, Carlton Cole and Sinclair as examples incidentally is just bizarre. Also Sturridge who wasn't a youth development, but was bought from City. The only one of those you could pick out as a real criticism is Matic, which is pretty funny given that he was actually less promising than Pogba at the point where you let him go.
Just like Sturridge, Matic was also signed from other team when he was 21. Not sure about your point about Pogba, Chelsea sold Matic to sign David Luiz, Pogba rejected the contract and left on free. It's not like ManUtd wanted to sell him or leave him.
Why did your club recall Nathan Ake only to not give him any minutes at all on the pitch? He was playing well at Bournemouth, why not allow him to complete the season there?
He's played twice since returning, and will get more time during the closing stages of the season. He's a Chelsea player not a Bournemouth player.
For once "god forbid" I do agree with trebles point, hopefully from here till the end of the season he does get game time because otherwise it will have been extremely pointless.. theres talks of including him plus money for Van Dijk in the summer.
Short of cover if Alonso is out for a long time
Aye, people forget quite how versatile Ake is. He can play CB, DM and cover out on the left. It would probably have been best if he'd stayed where he was, but if he can get some decent minutes for us at the end of the season it would give him a great chance to be ready to fight for a permanent place next year.
at the time he returned, there was concerns about the fitness of one or two players out on the left. It made sense to bring him back so we were not left short
The problem Conte has had this season is that with so few matches, there has not been many injuries or the need to rest players due to 'tiredness'
The first team has been very settled and achieved a fantastic set of results so far with a maximum change of 1 or 2 changes when required.
I bet every manager in the PL would love to be in that situation and would act exactly the same with regards to players
The first team has been very settled and achieved a fantastic set of results so far with a maximum change of 1 or 2 changes when required.
I bet every manager in the PL would love to be in that situation and would act exactly the same with regards to players
Unfortunately this is my last post for the day as I'm limited to 3
I agree and with our fixture list it hasn't been easy... but for example we have palace at home the first game back I don't see any reason there not to be playing Ake and Zouma really if possible. I think that kind of change would not upset the balance of the team at all.i dont think there will be bags of youth at Chelsea next year as you guys are going to spend heavily in summer. But Chalobah, RLC, Christensen, Ake i suspect will all be involved. 2 of them are now, at a decent rate. Infact that Chalobah and RLC look very good, especially the former.
Bertrand is another Mourinho let go (well he sanctioned the loan with view to buy deal), KDB, Lukaku, Thorgan Hazard, barely used Oriol Romeu, loaned Moses out constantly when hes a good player.
Lukaku i understand as at the time he wasnt worth £28m. The others i think were a little too soon
Bertrand is another Mourinho let go (well he sanctioned the loan with view to buy deal), KDB, Lukaku, Thorgan Hazard, barely used Oriol Romeu, loaned Moses out constantly when hes a good player.
Lukaku i understand as at the time he wasnt worth £28m. The others i think were a little too soon
Because we have zero cover for Alonso. An injury (and Alonso had fitness problems at the time) or suspension to Alonso would unbalance the whole team. Probably have to take Azpilicueta away from CB and play him at LWB and then play someone else at RCB. It would affect the quality of our play, especially because Azpi isn't even a LB (even though he played there in 14/15) and that's crucial to our 3-4-3. In comes Ake who's a LB/LWB/CB/DM. Basically one man giving us cover for multiple positions but especially LWB. As has been stated, we've also played fewer matches than usual so that's another problem. It's a bit unfair to him but he'll feature more regularly next season.
Bertrand's sale actually annoyed me more than the rest because he was supposed to be Ashley Cole's successor and he was more than ready for it. The lad had gone on countless loan spells and gained a lot of experience. Look how well he's playing for Southampton right now. I'd take him over Alonso in a heartbeat. More mobile and more physical. Better with crosses too. Terrible decision to let him go.
I know we're going to sign a new CM in the summer and it makes me worry for Chalobah but there will be a lot of matches to go around next season and we'll need a big squad so I think he'll still get some 20-30 odd appearances.
In answer to my own questions from before the season started....
No.
No.
No.
No.
Turns out I was right. I have no fecking clue.