Endrick

Rnd898

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2022
Messages
287
Supports
Chelsea
I think he will make the decision at the end of next season. He will look for an undisputed starting position and a lot of money.
Lots of reports have said he'll very likely sign a pre-contract (like Vinicius and Rodrygo did for RM) much earlier than the end of next season, maybe even before the end of the current season.

Wherever he goes, from the player's point of view it definitely makes the most sense to try and lock down a big contract ASAP. For starters him and his family probably get a multi-million signing bonus immediately and leaving the decision and the contract signing till summer 2024 comes with it's own risks too. What if he has a horror injury that causes the interest to die down a little, or what if he just doesn't kick on his development as well as currently expected? If either of those happen he won't get anywhere near the same kind of contract as he currently can with many top clubs competing for his signature.

Of course waiting around a bit longer can have its upsides too if the player is very confident in his own ability and his luck of staying injury free.
 

Niemans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2021
Messages
1,103
Supports
Barcelona, Celta de Vigo
Lots of reports have said he'll very likely sign a pre-contract (like Vinicius and Rodrygo did for RM) much earlier than the end of next season, maybe even before the end of the current season.

Wherever he goes, from the player's point of view it definitely makes the most sense to try and lock down a big contract ASAP. For starters him and his family probably get a multi-million signing bonus immediately and leaving the decision and the contract signing till summer 2024 comes with it's own risks too. What if he has a horror injury that causes the interest to die down a little, or what if he just doesn't kick on his development as well as currently expected? If either of those happen he won't get anywhere near the same kind of contract as he currently can with many top clubs competing for his signature.

Of course waiting around a bit longer can have its upsides too if the player is very confident in his own ability and his luck of staying injury free.
Indeed, there is a risk of injury but the family will wait for the clubs to go crazy with the offers. If a club makes an stratospheric offer , they will surely sign right now.

Vinicius was signed by Barcelona and Madrid at the last minute offered the double to the player and the club and took him. Something similar happened with Rodrygo.
 

Ali Dia

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
12,589
Location
Souness's Super Sub/George Weahs Talented Cousin
Either way we just can’t beat out clubs for the most sought after young players like we used to and we certainly are inexperienced when it comes to mega transfers from South America. Barca and Madrid are already expert in that market and are more attractive clubs currently. I think we should push the boat out on a few of these players and set a new precedent that we are going heavier in this market from now on. At least start mixing it up. If he’s a new international level talent the fee will be cheap in a few years. If he doesn’t do it you sell him for a small loss and move on.
 

ZolaWasMagic

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2018
Messages
2,451
Supports
Chelsea
Lots of reports have said he'll very likely sign a pre-contract (like Vinicius and Rodrygo did for RM) much earlier than the end of next season, maybe even before the end of the current season.

Wherever he goes, from the player's point of view it definitely makes the most sense to try and lock down a big contract ASAP. For starters him and his family probably get a multi-million signing bonus immediately and leaving the decision and the contract signing till summer 2024 comes with it's own risks too. What if he has a horror injury that causes the interest to die down a little, or what if he just doesn't kick on his development as well as currently expected? If either of those happen he won't get anywhere near the same kind of contract as he currently can with many top clubs competing for his signature.

Of course waiting around a bit longer can have its upsides too if the player is very confident in his own ability and his luck of staying injury free.
There has been rumours of a visit to RM's training base for Endrick, like him and his family did at Cobham; but his father has denied the story and said that no such visit is planned
 

Bluelion7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
635
Supports
Chelsea
Especially Chelsea. They lack the prestige of a Madrid, Barca, United etc
Yes, but we have
Just let Chelsea sign him, bring him over, introduce him to English football, fail to offer him a serious pathway to their first team and then sign him for €40m from whichever German club he leaves them for in 3 or 4 years time.
You have been noticing we hired some of the best people in the world at coordinating between academy and the first team?

At one point we had 6 Cobham graduates on the field at the same time to start a game. Are any of the top 6 coming close to that? That’s the big problem with Chelsea jokes, they are old and outdated.

I think at that point Endrick and his family were still spending a week at Cobham visiting as well.

I think the interesting thing about his statement is that seems an obvious reference to the fact that Clearlake see the possibility of not making too 4 this year, and don’t seem fazed by it in their long term strategy.

I don’t think Barca WANT to be in the Endrick race. 60m will just be the starting point for his rights two years from now. Why would they want to be in for the “New Neymar”, when the Old Neymar did so much damage to their traditional structure? Romano said that Barca had “not really entered the Endrick race yet”.

Madrid is the only side that that has put in near the time and effort Chelsea has building this relationship, and would be my odds on favorite to be where he goes.
 

redcucumber

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
1,147
Yes, but we have

You have been noticing we hired some of the best people in the world at coordinating between academy and the first team?

At one point we had 6 Cobham graduates on the field at the same time to start a game. Are any of the top 6 coming close to that? That’s the big problem with Chelsea jokes, they are old and outdated.


I think at that point Endrick and his family were still spending a week at Cobham visiting as well.

I think the interesting thing about his statement is that seems an obvious reference to the fact that Clearlake see the possibility of not making too 4 this year, and don’t seem fazed by it in their long term strategy.

I don’t think Barca WANT to be in the Endrick race. 60m will just be the starting point for his rights two years from now. Why would they want to be in for the “New Neymar”, when the Old Neymar did so much damage to their traditional structure? Romano said that Barca had “not really entered the Endrick race yet”.

Madrid is the only side that that has put in near the time and effort Chelsea has building this relationship, and would be my odds on favorite to be where he goes.
Wasn't that the game the other day? That you lost?
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,173
Yes, but we have

You have been noticing we hired some of the best people in the world at coordinating between academy and the first team?

At one point we had 6 Cobham graduates on the field at the same time to start a game. Are any of the top 6 coming close to that? That’s the big problem with Chelsea jokes, they are old and outdated.

I think at that point Endrick and his family were still spending a week at Cobham visiting as well.

I think the interesting thing about his statement is that seems an obvious reference to the fact that Clearlake see the possibility of not making too 4 this year, and don’t seem fazed by it in their long term strategy.

I don’t think Barca WANT to be in the Endrick race. 60m will just be the starting point for his rights two years from now. Why would they want to be in for the “New Neymar”, when the Old Neymar did so much damage to their traditional structure? Romano said that Barca had “not really entered the Endrick race yet”.

Madrid is the only side that that has put in near the time and effort Chelsea has building this relationship, and would be my odds on favorite to be where he goes.
Hire who you like. If it was my son, I’d be asking you to show me the players you’ve brought through to the first team from your academy.

City and Chelsea loving telling stories in the press about how good their academies are, but the proof is in the pudding and we’ve seen feck all make it through to actual minutes.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
Yes, but we have

You have been noticing we hired some of the best people in the world at coordinating between academy and the first team?

At one point we had 6 Cobham graduates on the field at the same time to start a game. Are any of the top 6 coming close to that? That’s the big problem with Chelsea jokes, they are old and outdated.

I think at that point Endrick and his family were still spending a week at Cobham visiting as well.

I think the interesting thing about his statement is that seems an obvious reference to the fact that Clearlake see the possibility of not making too 4 this year, and don’t seem fazed by it in their long term strategy.

I don’t think Barca WANT to be in the Endrick race. 60m will just be the starting point for his rights two years from now. Why would they want to be in for the “New Neymar”, when the Old Neymar did so much damage to their traditional structure? Romano said that Barca had “not really entered the Endrick race yet”.

Madrid is the only side that that has put in near the time and effort Chelsea has building this relationship, and would be my odds on favorite to be where he goes.
You really believe Chelsea have the same prestige as United, Real, Barca, Madrid?! wow!

At the point I’m sure you work for Clearlake :lol:
 

Zaphod2319

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
3,538
Supports
Chelsea
Hire who you like. If it was my son, I’d be asking you to show me the players you’ve brought through to the first team from your academy.

City and Chelsea loving telling stories in the press about how good their academies are, but the proof is in the pudding and we’ve seen feck all make it through to actual minutes.
Mason Mount
Reece James
Trevoh Chalobrah
Rueben Loftus Cheek
Connor Gallager
Amando Broja
Andreas Christensen
Callom Hudson Adoi
Billy Gilmour
Fikayo Tomori
Tammy Abraham

Have all had significant minutes in just the last few years.
 

Bluelion7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
635
Supports
Chelsea
Wasn't that the game the other day? That you lost?
Respectfully, so what? If you are t willing to risk a loss, then you aren’t willing to play 18 year olds in important moments. And side from Lewis Hall we’ve had plenty of Cobham graduates play in games we’ve won… in fact the same number of you just swap Reece for Hall in that 6.

And we are just getting started on that front.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
Mason Mount
Reece James
Trevoh Chalobrah
Rueben Loftus Cheek
Connor Gallager
Amando Broja
Andreas Christensen
Callom Hudson Adoi
Billy Gilmour
Fikayo Tomori
Tammy Abraham

Have all had significant minutes in just the last few years.
Not the best endorsement reality given the following have all left the club due to not being given opportunity ahead of expensive flops;

Christensen
Gilmour
Tomori
Abraham
Hudson- Odoi (loan but his career has dived)
 

Zaphod2319

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
3,538
Supports
Chelsea
Not the best endorsement reality given the following have all left the club due to not being given opportunity ahead of expensive flops;

Christensen
Gilmour
Tomori
Abraham
Hudson- Odoi (loan but his career has dived)
It is a great endorsement. Not every academy player will outcompete other players, but every one of the players you listed had significant minutes to prove they were ready.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
It is a great endorsement. Not every academy player will outcompete other players, but every one of the players you listed had significant minutes to prove they were ready.
I think the issue is this lot were better than what you picked instead arguably. Can add Liveramento and Lamptey to that list along with Guehi.

Chelsea have been good at developing the players but have made some shocking decisions in terms of integrating and establishing them long term. This may change though.
 

Zaphod2319

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
3,538
Supports
Chelsea
I think the issue is this lot were better than what you picked instead arguably. Can add Liveramento and Lamptey to that list along with Guehi.

Chelsea have been good at developing the players but have made some shocking decisions in terms of integrating and establishing them long term. This may change though.
I didn't add Livermento or Guehi because they barely had starts for the first team. Lamptey did under Lampard but I don't think we could call it significant minutes.
 

redcucumber

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
1,147
Respectfully, so what? If you are t willing to risk a loss, then you aren’t willing to play 18 year olds in important moments. And side from Lewis Hall we’ve had plenty of Cobham graduates play in games we’ve won… in fact the same number of you just swap Reece for Hall in that 6.

And we are just getting started on that front.
Well, in another thread there are Chelsea fans after Gvardiol, who will obviously eat up minutes from Cobham grads Chalobah and Colwill. Also, as great as it is to play youth players (and it genuinely is great), how many of the 6 that started against Newcastle are destined for the top? I'm not trying to undermine the work Chelsea are doing and I am definitely all for it (I'd love to see some sort of minimum requirement for academy players in the first 11), but we've seen it at United with players like McTominay, Lingard, Elanga etc get lots of minutes when it's quite clear they aren't up to much. Decent to good squad players who enjoyed a good bit of hype at one point, but amounted to little more than that, sadly.
 

Bluelion7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
635
Supports
Chelsea
Well, in another thread there are Chelsea fans after Gvardiol, who will obviously eat up minutes from Cobham grads Chalobah and Colwill. Also, as great as it is to play youth players (and it genuinely is great), how many of the 6 that started against Newcastle are destined for the top? I'm not trying to undermine the work Chelsea are doing and I am definitely all for it (I'd love to see some sort of minimum requirement for academy players in the first 11), but we've seen it at United with players like McTominay, Lingard, Elanga etc get lots of minutes when it's quite clear they aren't up to much. Decent to good squad players who enjoyed a good bit of hype at one point, but amounted to little more than that, sadly.
I think they are looking long term, also building quality depth. People were telling Chalobah he wouldn’t play this year , and then we were one injury away from trying RLC at CB (only slightly kidding).

I think this group looks at both long term solutions and depth. And bring baseball owners helps. There are free agent trades, but in baseball the farm system is everything for sustained excellence.

Silva is limited in how long he will play …. Obviously. Koulibaliy is right footed and also more of a short term solution that I’m not sure the new e exit I’ve board would have purchased.

In Gvardiol and Colwill you would have two excellent left footed central defenders, and since both are excellent coming forward with the ball you could play both in a back 3 (Trevoh, who has played CDM, would look good in the middle I think).

Even getting Gvardiol, I don’t see where our defense is crowded. It seems like it would make a good group to me.
 

redcucumber

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
1,147
I think they are looking long term, also building quality depth. People were telling Chalobah he wouldn’t play this year , and then we were one injury away from trying RLC at CB (only slightly kidding).

I think this group looks at both long term solutions and depth. And bring baseball owners helps. There are free agent trades, but in baseball the farm system is everything for sustained excellence.

Silva is limited in how long he will play …. Obviously. Koulibaliy is right footed and also more of a short term solution that I’m not sure the new e exit I’ve board would have purchased.

In Gvardiol and Colwill you would have two excellent left footed central defenders, and since both are excellent coming forward with the ball you could play both in a back 3 (Trevoh, who has played CDM, would look good in the middle I think).

Even getting Gvardiol, I don’t see where our defense is crowded. It seems like it would make a good group to me.
I don't see how you can have Fofana (who seems like the forgotten man somewhat), Koulibaly, Chalobah, Colwill, Cucurella as well as Gvardiol competing for places. It's a good group, but all of them will surely want to start. Won't derail this thread as well though - a discussion for the Chelsea thread. You also extended Azpilucueta's contract a few months ago until 2024! Chock-a-block.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
I think they are looking long term, also building quality depth. People were telling Chalobah he wouldn’t play this year , and then we were one injury away from trying RLC at CB (only slightly kidding).

I think this group looks at both long term solutions and depth. And bring baseball owners helps. There are free agent trades, but in baseball the farm system is everything for sustained excellence.

Silva is limited in how long he will play …. Obviously. Koulibaliy is right footed and also more of a short term solution that I’m not sure the new e exit I’ve board would have purchased.

In Gvardiol and Colwill you would have two excellent left footed central defenders, and since both are excellent coming forward with the ball you could play both in a back 3 (Trevoh, who has played CDM, would look good in the middle I think).

Even getting Gvardiol, I don’t see where our defense is crowded. It seems like it would make a good group to me.
If Colwill is excellent and so good why didn’t you keep him and play him this season rather than buying an old Koulibaly and Mega money Fofana?

Colwill has got barely 100 minutes this season at Brighton
 

Svartzonker

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
578
It’s fair to shit on Chelsea for many things, but their academy is not one of them.

They have just had their ”golden generation” of players making it to the pros.
 

Ali Dia

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
12,589
Location
Souness's Super Sub/George Weahs Talented Cousin
It’s fair to shit on Chelsea for many things, but their academy is not one of them.

They have just had their ”golden generation” of players making it to the pros.
They also have plenty of players popping up all around the other top leagues. Their academy/recruitment of high quality young players has been excellent. Their use of those players has been hit and miss. I still feel it’s actually better than how we’ve done with Lingard Pogba Williams Henderson Morrison Greenwood etc.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
They also have plenty of players popping up all around the other top leagues. Their academy/recruitment of high quality young players has been excellent. Their use of those players has been hit and miss. I still feel it’s actually better than how we’ve done with Lingard Pogba Williams Henderson Morrison Greenwood etc.
You’ve just picked a random bunch of youth players there? Not sure what that proves
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
It’s fair to shit on Chelsea for many things, but their academy is not one of them.

They have just had their ”golden generation” of players making it to the pros.
And only two of them have a career at Chelsea (Mount and James as regular starters)
 

Bluelion7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
635
Supports
Chelsea
You really believe Chelsea have the same prestige as United, Real, Barca, Madrid?! wow!

At the point I’m sure you work for Clearlake :lol:
As Barca and Madrid, no. For a 16 year old kid, United? Possibly We have been Champions of Europe in the time the kid was old enough to have memories at least.

The Jersey alone is not the magnet it once was. Athletes today, not just in football, do NOT care about the history and “prestige” that history once afforded. I would argue it is dying a bit for Barca now as well, and maybe only Madrid really has IT anymore.

That’s why PSG is n the top 3. It’s about the money, the overall project and the showcase.

Except for Madrid. I truly think they are the only team that can “pull anyone they want” by name alone anymore.

I told you guys we were WAY ahead of many clubs on Endrick in July. We were very close to buying a club with the ability to buy Endrick early and avoid all this for awhile. We’ve eaten in his home a ton, spent time with his family and coaches, put in the work building relationships. Romano isn’t putting us in that top 3 on a lark.

People think these guys would care about things like who George Best played …. And they just don’t.

If you guys were in the position of a City, and could combine that with your name value? That would be a different story. But you aren’t.
 

Bluelion7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
635
Supports
Chelsea
Not the best endorsement reality given the following have all left the club due to not being given opportunity ahead of expensive flops;

Christensen
Gilmour
Tomori
Abraham
Hudson- Odoi (loan but his career has dived)
See, like with the other issue, you think the young players look at this in terms of who gets to stay and play for Chelsea. Your argument is that the academy system failed because Tammy had to make 15m a year to play in Rome instead of Chelsea. Young talent are just seeing the sheer number of people who came through Cobham and are making very good money to play top level first team football.

The only way you don’t have players going to other first teams is if you have a BAD academy.

Now, the Lukaku point is a fair one. But a knee jerk purchase of a player we already got rid of once just because feelings were hurt over Haaland was a very Roman thing. But it only goes to show: as good as our academy has been … Clearlake saw it as a weak spot where a lot of improvement could be made. The multi club structure alone, along with better coordination, will take it to a different level.

Of course, hidden in all this is the irony that we all got in a discussion of academies at all. Endrick won’t be in one. If he isn’t assured of being in first team, then he won’t be going to the team making the offer.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
As Barca and Madrid, no. For a 16 year old kid, United? Possibly We have been Champions of Europe in the time the kid was old enough to have memories at least.

The Jersey alone is not the magnet it once was. Athletes today, not just in football, do NOT care about the history and “prestige” that history once afforded. I would argue it is dying a bit for Barca now as well, and maybe only Madrid really has IT anymore.

That’s why PSG is n the top 3. It’s about the money, the overall project and the showcase.

Except for Madrid. I truly think they are the only team that can “pull anyone they want” by name alone anymore.

I told you guys we were WAY ahead of many clubs on Endrick in July. We were very close to buying a club with the ability to buy Endrick early and avoid all this for awhile. We’ve eaten in his home a ton, spent time with his family and coaches, put in the work building relationships. Romano isn’t putting us in that top 3 on a lark.

People think these guys would care about things like who George Best played …. And they just don’t.

If you guys were in the position of a City, and could combine that with your name value? That would be a different story. But you aren’t.
Interesting opinion. Where do you see Chelsea then in comparison to the two biggest clubs in England (United and Liverpool)? Or do you genuinely feel they are in that category?
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
See, like with the other issue, you think the young players look at this in terms of who gets to stay and play for Chelsea. Your argument is that the academy system failed because Tammy had to make 15m a year to play in Rome instead of Chelsea. Young talent are just seeing the sheer number of people who came through Cobham and are making very good money to play top level first team football.

The only way you don’t have players going to other first teams is if you have a BAD academy.

Now, the Lukaku point is a fair one. But a knee jerk purchase of a player we already got rid of once just because feelings were hurt over Haaland was a very Roman thing. But it only goes to show: as good as our academy has been … Clearlake saw it as a weak spot where a lot of improvement could be made. The multi club structure alone, along with better coordination, will take it to a different level.

Of course, hidden in all this is the irony that we all got in a discussion of academies at all. Endrick won’t be in one. If he isn’t assured of being in first team, then he won’t be going to the team making the offer.
Oh I understand academies. United have the most productive academy in England and one of the best in Europe in terms of producing players to play in professional leagues.

My point with Chelsea is that they have really made a hash of transitioning these players in to cemented first team members by making some ridiculous transfer decisions.

Defensively alone you’ve sold Guehi, Tomori, Liveramento and Lamptey only to spend millions on Chilwell, Cucerella, Fofana and Koulibaly. You also added Thiago Silva in his twilight years. Even as recently as last year Colwill was sent on loan and you spend a fortune on new players and are now linked with Gvardiol. Just crazy.

Tammy v Lukaku (100m flop) and Werner (flop) is another piece of stupidity.

Gilmour couldn’t get a game either and bizarrely was bought by your new manager at Brighton :lol:

Odoi stagnating and out on loan whilst you spent millions on Pulisic (who has also gone backwards and wants to leave) and the much older Ziyech (failed again).

Honestly it’s been an absolute shambles lately. Even the young players you keep buying seem to be regressing at Chelsea. Havertz and Pulisic two prime examples.
 

Rnd898

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2022
Messages
287
Supports
Chelsea
Defensively alone you’ve sold Guehi, Tomori, Liveramento and Lamptey only to spend millions on Chilwell, Cucerella, Fofana and Koulibaly. You also added Thiago Silva in his twilight years. Even as recently as last year Colwill was sent on loan and you spend a fortune on new players and are now linked with Gvardiol. Just crazy.
I definitely agree with you on some of the players but why include Chilwell? None of the academy products you mentioned play LB or LWB so outside recruitment was definitely needed there. At the time he was signed Lewis Hall was 16 and Ian Maatsen 18 and neither of them were even close to being ready to stake a claim for the role. For the Cucurella signing there is certainly an argument whether another expensive signing was needed or if Hall/Maatsen could have taken the spot now, but then again with Chilwell's fitness a big question mark these days and seeing our last season being totally derailed by the wing-back injury crisis just showed how important the wide positions are in our team and how crucial it is to have good options there.

I would also like to state that signing Silva on a freebie was one of the biggest reasons we won the UCL in 2021 so using him as a stick to beat the club is not exactly working out for you in the way you probably thought. Chilwell was also a huge contributor in the CL win.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
I definitely agree with you on some of the players but why include Chilwell? None of the academy products you mentioned play LB or LWB so outside recruitment was definitely needed there. At the time he was signed Lewis Hall was 16 and Ian Maatsen 18 and neither of them were even close to being ready to stake a claim for the role. For the Cucurella signing there is certainly an argument whether another expensive signing was needed or if Hall/Maatsen could have taken the spot now, but then again with Chilwell's fitness a big question mark these days and seeing our last season being totally derailed by the wing-back injury crisis just showed how important the wide positions are in our team and how crucial it is to have good options there.

I would also like to state that signing Silva on a freebie was one of the biggest reasons we won the UCL in 2021 so using him as a stick to beat the club is not exactly working out for you in the way you probably thought. Chilwell was also a huge contributor in the CL win.
RE Silva yes it’s fine to look at that in hindsight but the issue is you’ve been picking up ageing players like Silva and Koulibaly whilst failing to integrate and keep players line Tomori, Guehi and Colwill.

Honestly the more I look at what Chelsea have been doing since Lampard the more I see how strange the decision making has been. Absolutely no long term planning.

Broja was another one close to going this summer himself.
 

Rnd898

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2022
Messages
287
Supports
Chelsea
RE Silva yes it’s fine to look at that in hindsight but the issue is you’ve been picking up ageing players like Silva and Koulibaly whilst failing to integrate and keep players line Tomori, Guehi and Colwill.
Isn't hindsight the main way you're looking at things too?

You go on an on about Chelsea failing to integrate Tariq Lamptey and Tino Livramento while totally ignoring that when they left there was no way of knowing Reece James would be injured so much. At the time it made sense for everyone, especially the players themselves, that they leave because the expectation was that James will play around 50 games a season and whoever the backup is will be limited to a role way too small for a young player to develop enough. In hindsight though, knowing what we now know about James' struggles with regular muscle injuries, players like Lamptey or Livramento would have played a lot of football had they stayed and if the players knew that at the time I doubt they'd have even wanted to move and I doubt the club would have been happy to let them go either.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
Isn't hindsight the main way you're looking at things too?

You go on an on about Chelsea failing to integrate Tariq Lamptey and Tino Livramento while totally ignoring that when they left there was no way of knowing Reece James would be injured so much. At the time it made sense for everyone, especially the players themselves, that they leave because the expectation was that James will play around 50 games a season and whoever the backup is will be limited to a role way too small for a young player to develop enough. In hindsight though, knowing what we now know about James' struggles with regular muscle injuries, players like Lamptey or Livramento would have played a lot of football had they stayed and if the players knew that at the time I doubt they'd have even wanted to move and I doubt the club would have been happy to let them go either.
What’s the reason players like Gilmour, Pulisic, Havertz and Odoi have all regressed though?

There’s too much of it with Chelsea tbh in terms of young players.
 

Rnd898

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2022
Messages
287
Supports
Chelsea
What’s the reason players like Gilmour, Pulisic, Havertz and Odoi have all regressed though?

There’s too much of it with Chelsea tbh in terms of young players.
Gilmour definitely 100% down to Tuchel's personal preferences. Despite some promising performances during Lampard's managerial reign, as well as good outings for the Scottish NT, it just never looked like Tuchel fancied him at all. It's a shame because I rate him highly, though he could probably do with bulking up a little if he wants to be successful in the PL.

Hudson-Odoi lost a lot of pace and sharpness to beat his man when he got that horror injury few years ago and hasn't looked the same since. Could he still have developed into a more useful player if he was shoehorned as a starter under Lampard ahead of Willian, Pedro at first and then Ziyech, Pulisic in the later seasons? Maybe, maybe not. CHO doesn't exactly look like a world beater now at Leverkusen either, though he's still reasonably young so he could go on to have a good career be it at Chelsea or somewhere else.

Has Pulisic actually regressed or was he just never as good as hyped early into his career? At Dortmund he never reached 10 goal contributions (G+A) over a Bundesliga season but there was supposed to be some potential for improvement and the hype reached ridiculous proportions partly because he's American and they've not had many players even at that level. Over three league seasons Pulisic' record in the Bundesliga was 11G+15A and he's more or less kept the same pace with Chelsea too, scoring 19 and assisting 8 over three PL seasons. He just hasn't developed even close to as expeced but it's not like he's had a Sancho-level collapse either. Sancho, over a similar time period, scored 37 goals and assisted another 41 for the same team in the Bundesliga and was considered to be a much better player but has struggled in the PL even more than Pulisic has. Mind you the last bit was not meant as a dig at United for making Sancho look shit, just an observation on their respective performances at their previous club Dortmund and their struggles after moving to the PL.

As for Havertz I really don't know. He was widely touted as a 'generational talent' (really hate that word) but I just don't see what he's actually good at. He's a flexible player who can play multiple roles but at the same time he just doesn't seem to be great at any of them. He takes too long with the ball at his feet, his passing is often a bit mediocre and despite having reasonably good pace he can't really beat a man 1v1. Maybe if the whoel team functioned better as an attacking unit we might seem him click better but then again at times it's looked like he's very much a part of the problem as to why the attack is not working. One thing that's for sure though is that with the likes of Havertz and Pulisic their supposed regression is definitely not down to the lack of opportunities they've been given. They've both played tons of games and gotten long runs of games in the starting lineup without ever showing any signs of improvement.

What I will give you is that the managerial instability at the club in recent years probably hasn't helped any of the players mentioned, nor some of the other youngster you mentioned before. While the more experienced players can more easily transition to a different game system when a new manager comes in, the younger players can sometimes end up struggling. But even so the fault lies just as much if not more on the shoulders of the players themselves than it does on the club or the manager, this last bit is especially true on Pulisic and Havertz but less so with the likes of Gilmour.
 
Last edited:

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
44,105
Location
Manchester
Gilmour definitely 100% down to Tuchel's personal preferences. Despite some promising performances during Lampard's managerial reign, as well as good outings for the Scottish NT, it just never looked like Tuchel fancied him at all. It's a shame because I rate him highly, though he could probably do with bulking up a little if he wants to be successful in the PL.

Hudson-Odoi lost a lot of pace and sharpness to beat his man when he got that horror injury few years ago and hasn't looked the same since. Could he still have developed into a more useful player if he was shoehorned as a starter under Lampard ahead of Willian, Pedro at first and then Ziyech, Pulisic in the later seasons? Maybe, maybe not. CHO doesn't exactly look like a world beater now at Leverkusen either, though he's still reasonably young so he could go on to have a good career be it at Chelsea or somewhere else.

Has Pulisic actually regressed or was he just never as good as hyped early into his career? At Dortmund he never reached 10 goal contributions (G+A) over a Bundesliga season but there was supposed to be some potential for improvement and the hype reached ridiculous proportions partly because he's American and they've not had many players even at that level. Over three league seasons Pulisic' record in the Bundesliga was 11G+15A and he's more or less kept the same pace with Chelsea too, scoring 19 and assisting 8 over three PL seasons. He just hasn't developed even close to as expeced but it's not like he's had a Sancho-level collapse either. Sancho, over a similar time period, scored 37 goals and assisted another 41 for the same team in the Bundesliga and was considered to be a much better player but has struggled in the PL even more than Pulisic has. Mind you the last bit was not meant as a dig at United for making Sancho look shit, just an observation on their respective performances at their previous club Dortmund and their struggles after moving to the PL.

As for Havertz I really don't know. He was widely touted as a 'generational talent' (really hate that word) but I just don't see what he's actually good at. He's a flexible player who can play multiple roles but at the same time he just doesn't seem to be great at any of them. He takes too long with the ball at his feet, his passing is often a bit mediocre and despite having reasonably good pace he can't really beat a man 1v1. Maybe if the whoel team functioned better as an attacking unit we might seem him click better but then again at times it's looked like he's very much a part of the problem as to why the attack is not working. One thing that's for sure though is that with the likes of Havertz and Pulisic their supposed regression is definitely not down to the lack of opportunities they've been given. They've both played tons of games and gotten long runs of games in the starting lineup without ever showing any signs of improvement.

What I will give you is that the managerial instability at the club in recent years probably hasn't helped any of the players mentioned, nor some of the other youngster you mentioned before. While the more experienced players can more easily transition to a different game system when a new manager comes in, the younger players can sometimes end up struggling. But even so the fault lies just as much if not more on the shoulders of the players themselves than it does on the club or the manager, this last bit is especially true on Pulisic and Havertz but less so with the likes of Gilmour.
You make some good points. Some I agree with, others I don’t.

You talk of managerial instability in recent years having an impact on your young players however I’d argue that’s the model your club has been built on since Roman.

You’ve arguably not had managerial stability for 20 years now and the only manager that genuinely gave opportunity to your younger players during this period was Frank Lampard and he was quickly sacked. If anything this kind of environment is exactly why a player like Endrick would do well to stay away from the club, granted, this may change under Potter.

I see Chelsea having made numerous errors in terms of their young players and it’s surely no coincidence the vast majority of these talents decided they wanted to leave the club and couldn’t be persuaded to stay. Even now I see you making the same strange decisions with the loaning out of Colwill whilst spending over £100m on new centre backs in the same window (and trying to additionally sign Gvardiol!).

In terms of Pulisic it seems he was very much another big money panic buy as his monster fee was never really justified and based on pure speculation that he might improve. Instead he’s gone stale.

In terms of getting young players in and around the first team you seem quite good but at that point it all goes wrong.
 

Rnd898

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2022
Messages
287
Supports
Chelsea
You make some good points. Some I agree with, others I don’t.

You talk of managerial instability in recent years having an impact on your young players however I’d argue that’s the model your club has been built on since Roman.

You’ve arguably not had managerial stability for 20 years now and the only manager that genuinely gave opportunity to your younger players during this period was Frank Lampard and he was quickly sacked. If anything this kind of environment is exactly why a player like Endrick would do well to stay away from the club, granted, this may change under Potter.

I see Chelsea having made numerous errors in terms of their young players and it’s surely no coincidence the vast majority of these talents decided they wanted to leave the club and couldn’t be persuaded to stay. Even now I see you making the same strange decisions with the loaning out of Colwill whilst spending over £100m on new centre backs in the same window (and trying to additionally sign Gvardiol!).

In terms of getting young players in and around the first team you seem quite good but at that point it all goes wrong.
Yeah I definitely didn't mean it like the managerial instability is a recent thing. Like you said that was the model of the club and for a long time no Chelsea manager even bothered with the youth to begin with because the managers themselves weren't afforded any time when hard times came around. In the first ~15 years into Roman's regime I would consider that to have been a somewhat justified approach because it's what brought us plenty of trophies and marks by far the most successful time period in the club's history, and ranks quite highly even across all clubs in England after the turn of the century.

That said, the standards have dropped a lot in the last 4-5 years and even under Roman the managers weren't really expected to win titles anymore and top 4 has been considered enough for a good while now. Coincidence or not but in the same time we've slowly but surely started seeing more and more youth products given a chance, with a bunch of them even becoming very much regulars in the first team. Some have still fallen through the cracks who perhaps should have been given a role in the team, but we've still had a very healthy amount of club-raised youngsters in the team lately. What I meant by the 'recent years' bit was only really regarding the players we were discussing.

But yeah, there has definitely been a shift in policy even in the last years under Roman and now under the Boehly-Clearlake leadership the talk is they are planning to build a team for long term success focused mostly on the younger players, be they from the club's own academy or imports from elsewhere. I wouldn't expect every player to be 21 or younger when joining the club and there will definitely still be the occasional experienced player signed in or about their prime years but the overall feel of the future squad building seems to be quite different compared to the Roman era.

It's true this summer we signed a couple of veterans in Sterling, Koulibaly and Aubameyang who don't really fit into the ideology of building a young squad but that was very likely down to Tuchel being heavily involved in the transfers. While Tuchel is in my opinion a world class coach he is not a squad builder for long-term projects, nor is he all that good with young players. A good comparison for Tuchel would be Conte or prime-Mourinho who can get the best out of a squad while spending money on signings for the here and now but not really so much for the future. Now we have Potter who seems to be more in line with what the owners are reportedly planning so it's going to be interesting to see what happens. I just hope he's fully backed by the new owners in that he gets given the time required to see what he can do with the squad and also what he, together with the recruitment team that's been built behind the scenes, can do in the transfer market.

How that long term vision actually comes into fruition is still a little bit up in the air but I still don't think it's very sensible to look at what happened or didn't happen with young players in the first ~15 years into Roman's regime and use it as a baseline today for someone like Endrick to make their decision about whether to join the club or not. So much has changed from those days that basically the only thing that's still the same is the name of the club. I still think we won't actually land Endrick but even if he doesn't join I think the signings we do get will be similar to him in that they're young with high potential to improve.

In terms of Pulisic it seems he was very much another big money panic buy as his monster fee was never really justified and based on pure speculation that he might improve. Instead he’s gone stale.
If anything, Pulisic was a panic buy in the sense that the transfer was finalized for the coming summer already in the January of 2019 when the club execs very likely already knew we would be getting a transfer ban that would prevent us from properly replacing Eden Hazard who had already been promised a transfer in the previous summer of 2018. At the time we also had Willian and Pedro on their last legs with both of their contracts ending in 2020 so Pulisic was brought in as a long term replacement for all three, despite overlapping with Willian and Pedro in the team for one season.

When the signing of Pulisic was made I looked at his numbers and didn't think he was anything special. I suppose for a 20yo lad he was doing alright but most of the transfer fee was based on potential, like it is with all young players, and the club probably saw some marketing potential to tap into the USA market due to him being American. If he had developed into a better player with us the commercial value would have been huge but as it is, all we have got to show for him being American is a lot of yanks arguing on social media that he should be starting despite the player not being good enough for it.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
10,727
Yeah I definitely didn't mean it like the managerial instability is a recent thing. Like you said that was the model of the club and for a long time no Chelsea manager even bothered with the youth to begin with because the managers themselves weren't afforded any time when hard times came around. In the first ~15 years into Roman's regime I would consider that to have been a somewhat justified approach because it's what brought us plenty of trophies and marks by far the most successful time period in the club's history, and ranks quite highly even across all clubs in England after the turn of the century.

That said, the standards have dropped a lot in the last 4-5 years and even under Roman the managers weren't really expected to win titles anymore and top 4 has been considered enough for a good while now. Coincidence or not but in the same time we've slowly but surely started seeing more and more youth products given a chance, with a bunch of them even becoming very much regulars in the first team. Some have still fallen through the cracks who perhaps should have been given a role in the team, but we've still had a very healthy amount of club-raised youngsters in the team lately. What I meant by the 'recent years' bit was only really regarding the players we were discussing.

But yeah, there has definitely been a shift in policy even in the last years under Roman and now under the Boehly-Clearlake leadership the talk is they are planning to build a team for long term success focused mostly on the younger players, be they from the club's own academy or imports from elsewhere. I wouldn't expect every player to be 21 or younger when joining the club and there will definitely still be the occasional experienced player signed in or about their prime years but the overall feel of the future squad building seems to be quite different compared to the Roman era.

It's true this summer we signed a couple of veterans in Sterling, Koulibaly and Aubameyang who don't really fit into the ideology of building a young squad but that was very likely down to Tuchel being heavily involved in the transfers. While Tuchel is in my opinion a world class coach he is not a squad builder for long-term projects, nor is he all that good with young players. A good comparison for Tuchel would be Conte or prime-Mourinho who can get the best out of a squad while spending money on signings for the here and now but not really so much for the future. Now we have Potter who seems to be more in line with what the owners are reportedly planning so it's going to be interesting to see what happens. I just hope he's fully backed by the new owners in that he gets given the time required to see what he can do with the squad and also what he, together with the recruitment team that's been built behind the scenes, can do in the transfer market.

How that long term vision actually comes into fruition is still a little bit up in the air but I still don't think it's very sensible to look at what happened or didn't happen with young players in the first ~15 years into Roman's regime and use it as a baseline today for someone like Endrick to make their decision about whether to join the club or not. So much has changed from those days that basically the only thing that's still the same is the name of the club. I still think we won't actually land Endrick but even if he doesn't join I think the signings we do get will be similar to him in that they're young with high potential to improve.



If anything, Pulisic was a panic buy in the sense that the transfer was finalized for the coming summer already in the January of 2019 when the club execs very likely already knew we would be getting a transfer ban that would prevent us from properly replacing Eden Hazard who had already been promised a transfer in the previous summer of 2018. At the time we also had Willian and Pedro on their last legs with both of their contracts ending in 2020 so Pulisic was brought in as a long term replacement for all three, despite overlapping with Willian and Pedro in the team for one season.

When the signing of Pulisic was made I looked at his numbers and didn't think he was anything special. I suppose for a 20yo lad he was doing alright but most of the transfer fee was based on potential, like it is with all young players, and the club probably saw some marketing potential to tap into the USA market due to him being American. If he had developed into a better player with us the commercial value would have been huge but as it is, all we have got to show for him being American is a lot of yanks arguing on social media that he should be starting despite the player not being good enough for it.
Public has had too many injuries I think. He genuinely looked a class dribbler at the beginning of his time and Chelsea and now he's just a bit non-descript.
 

Zaphod2319

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
3,538
Supports
Chelsea
Public has had too many injuries I think. He genuinely looked a class dribbler at the beginning of his time and Chelsea and now he's just a bit non-descript.
The really odd thing is he is much more aggressive and takes on defenders while playing on the USMNT. I don’t think Tuchel wanted that risk. Both Pulisic and CHO became much less aggressive in that offense. I’m not saying he is a better player, just more aggressive. In both teams he tries to hard to draw a foul instead of setting up his shot on goal.
 

Rnd898

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2022
Messages
287
Supports
Chelsea
Public has had too many injuries I think. He genuinely looked a class dribbler at the beginning of his time and Chelsea and now he's just a bit non-descript.
It's true injuries have very likely played some negative part in Pulisic' career so far but blaming the injuries still feels mostly like an excuse for his bad performances and lack of development.

For example Reece James has been injured for around the exact same number of games and he's still been pretty much our best player whenever he's been fit. N'Golo Kante and Mateo Kovacic have also been similarly prone to recurrent injuries but both have still performed really well when called upon.

If Pulisic was actually any good he'd have done more with the 75% of games he has been fit and available for, though I admit the injuries certainly haven't helped his cause.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
10,727
It's true injuries have very likely played some negative part in Pulisic' career so far but blaming the injuries still feels mostly like an excuse for his bad performances and lack of development.

For example Reece James has been injured for around the exact same number of games and he's still been pretty much our best player whenever he's been fit. N'Golo Kante and Mateo Kovacic have also been similarly prone to recurrent injuries but both have still performed really well when called upon.

If Pulisic was actually any good he'd have done more with the 75% of games he has been fit and available for, though I admit the injuries certainly haven't helped his cause.
I assume the difference is partly mental though, you wouldn't call any of those other players fragile, they're all up for a challenge. I think Pulisic maybe fears being tackled which is obviously a problem if your game is about dribbling. I suspect he may have also lost a bit of pace which again would be more of an issue for him than those other players.
 
X