Exactly my thoughts bro, last season when every thing was going fine nobody talked about Emenalo. But when Jose messed things up buy selling players that could have made an impact here and loan out some of our players with potentials. Started quarreling with Eva and criticized the team publicly, then suddenly Emenalo appeared from nowhere.

Wow! Sometimes I really feel pity for that poor fellow.

 

Again, this isn't quite true. Emenalo hasn't suddenly taken flack because of this season. You can go back to 2010 to find people asking what the f**k this guy is doing here and how he rose to any position of power on such little experience.

Ryan Mason? Townsend?

 

I feel like we've been seeing this said for quite a while now.

 

I'm going to hold onto that RLC quote cause I don't think him staying here next season is that clear cut. 

 

And Todd Kane? Really? Would be a great reward for such loyalty but I don't see it ever happening. 

 

Townsend has moved to Newcastle so he's irrelevant and Mason isn't a starter.  

He has a go at Spurs but they have still developed one more player than Chelsea, what a p****.

Yeah very odd.

And I'm not playing any race card because I've lost an argument, makes no sense really. I just found it disrespectful that someone accused you of backing Emanalo because you are both African.

the accusation was made based on historical evidence of him backing everything African on this site. As for disrespect , I find it abhorrent that you can insinuate members of this forum are racist for questioning the input of Emenalo. its a disgusting thing to do and makes me think your a complete prick, no matter what colour you are.

no matter what colour you are

 

I would say he was yellow because it's a very cowardly thing to say that someone is playing the race card.

He wasn't really expected to win anything with Southampton and hasn't been at Sp*rs that long but has already got them in a CL place and challenging for the title. On current form they are way ahead of us and that is down to him and I honestly would have taken him ahead of Conte (but obviously now we've got Conte, hope he turns things around).

Not saying he hasn't done anything for them. He is a very good coach who gives opportunity to youth. As you said, he has less expectations at Spurs and hence can do that. He might win this year and all credit to him but not sure how he will fare if the top guns start firing again. Spurs are on track to get around 75-76 points in current form. In any other year, they might still be finishing 3rd or 4th.

At a club at Chelsea where we have unrealistic expectations year after year and no patience, might have been tough for him if he had come.

I think the academy is in great shape, the academy staff as a collective can't really be responsible for the actual opportunities the players get in the first team, they can only be responsible for producing talent that can realistically take that step.

Ultimately what we need is a manager with the inclination to put young players in and an owner who will give him the security to do so.

I personally don't think we have ever had both of those things. There seems to be more of a willingness from the club but until it actually happens it is hard to say how concrete that is.

We have the best youth teams in England and Europe. We have excellent coaches, we have a great scouting network and since 2008 we've been in 6 of the 8 FA Youth Cup Finals, winning 4 of them. 

 

The problem is that we don't know what to do with them after that and that is one of the few things that we can all agree falls under Emenalo's remit isn't it?

 

I think the problem is that we're looking for certainties when it comes to youth development. If feels like they need to be the finished article to get a chance here and the performance on loan is everything. It just doesn't seem to be working. 

 

Look at how Spurs treated Harry Kane and how we treated Patrick Bamford. Both had at least four loans at similar levels, and it's fair to say that Bamford out-performed Kane in that time. Yet Spurs gave Kane a chance and looked to develop him in house whereas our response was.....

 

another loan.

 

The same can be said for Nat Chalobah who came off a brilliant loan at Watford to....go on another loan. In fact the only success we've had thus far has been Loftus-Cheek who skipped all that loan stuff and is starting to nail down a place in the squad.

 

It comes down to faith and having someone oversee this whole club who has some sense of vision. Emenalo is Roman's man, he's not Chelsea's man. His first responsibility will always be to the man who sacked Ray Wilkins and placed him on the bench.

 

Until that happens, we'll just have the same thing happening again and again and in three years time Emenalo will update us on the next bunch of youngsters who have a future here.

We have the best youth teams in England and Europe. We have excellent coaches, we have a great scouting network and since 2008 we've been in 6 of the 8 FA Youth Cup Finals, winning 4 of them.

The problem is that we don't know what to do with them after that and that is one of the few things that we can all agree falls under Emenalo's remit isn't it?

No. It's down to the manager to ask for the players to be part of his squad. If they don't you either have to sell the player, loan the player or leave him in the reserves waiting for either an injury crisis or the manager to change his mind.

And if they are loaned they really have to take their chances and take them well. The margin for error is slim but that comes with the territory at clubs with our ambitions. An average loan spell won't cut it.

I take your point re Bamford and kane, but I don't believe that it follows that because he was better in the championship we could have realistically expected him to be better than him now. Firstly kanes development is massively out of the ordinary and Secondly players develop at different rates and peak at different stages in their career.

Ultimately these players are there for the manager to choose to use or not. Neither Neil bath or Michael emenalo can strong-arm Jose or hiddink into or conte into putting these players in, can they?

P.s.i don't personally think doing well in the championship should guarantee you become a member of the first team squad because the gap is huge. (although in chalobahs case I think he should have been assimilated)

Edited April 22, 201610 yr by g3.7

Who from the Chelsea youth has panned out in first team last? Yes, John terry. None of the players we have let go from our youth have been amazing for a title winning team. We don't have a Pogba who has left our Academy. I remember Josh McCreachan was touted as the next Lampard. Faded into obscurity right? God forbid, maybe these youth are just not that good enough. They look better than our current options sure, but I think I might be an upgrade on Ivanovic. That said, I really hope things change in the future.

No. It's down to the manager to ask for the players to be part of his squad. If they don't you either have to sell the player, loan the player or leave him in the reserves waiting for either an injury crisis or the manager to change his mind.

And if they are loaned they really have to take their chances and take them well. The margin for error is slim but that comes with the territory at clubs with our ambitions. An average loan spell won't cut it.

Ultimately these players are there for the manager to choose to use or not. Neither Neil bath or Michael emenalo can strong-arm Jose or hiddink into or conte into putting these players in, can they?

P.s.i don't personally think doing well in the championship should guarantee you become a member of the first team squad because the gap is huge. (although in chalobahs case I think he should have been assimilated)

 

And there-in lies the problem. You're asking a coach who is judged on results to try and accommodate young, inexperienced players into his squad which may impact on his chance of getting results.

 

You're asking a coach to put his £5 million per year job on the line for the possibility of long-term gain at the expense of short-term gain, when his boss has dismissed coaches because of short-term failures and the long-term benefits aren't likely to affect him.

 

In my opinion, that is the ultimate problem at the heart of this club and is EXACTLY why someone needs to instruct coaches to use young players but also tell them that their job will be safe. That just won't happen here though. It's why we need a person of vision running this club who can reconcile the long-term and the short-term aims of this club, something that Roman has consistently failed to do. He has two speeds.

 

Win now - which means spending huge amounts of money, his greatest attribute as owner.

 

Transition/Consolidate - that period after winning when we invariably fail to take the next step, either bringing through young talent or spending having had success.

 

He doesn't seem to have the skillset to combine the two, and why would he? He's a businessman. But surely even he recognises that he needs to put people into positions of power so that they can run this club better, so that it isn't dependent on his vast wealth? Can't he?

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/10253220/chelsea-technical-director-michael-emenalo-insists-the-club-has-a-better-youth-set-up-than-tottenham?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

He has a point. If you buy a player in his teens, a brilliant prospect, it is only technically your product. Too much fuss about the whole thing. People focus on this youth-thing for no reason. Premier League is so full of bought talent there is no space for youth. You decide whether it should be more of an international league or domestic. I like the former.

As someone of a minority race I'm aware that in football as in the greater society both overt and subtle racism exist. For example I think that Ryan Giggs being a white British guy has made it easier for him to rehabilitate his reputation and get on the very short list of candidates to head Man United, though I don't see him actually getting the job. I also see a disparity in maximum potential commercial endorsement money. There's no way Beckham would have gotten as rich if he were black.

With Emanalo I don't see race as a factor. The Premier League isn't devoid of racism, but when it comes to criticism, I don't perceive a difference between the races. Mikel and Matic are comparable players, and they are equally likely to get credit and criticism. Willian is a popular player, our three most promising youth are all black, and Drogba is a legend who is appreciated for not just his playing but also his leadership.

Things were stacked against Emanalo from the beginning because it's perceived, rightly or wrongly, that he politicked, kissed ass, and wiggled his way into a position that he's unqualified for. Sometimes seemingly unqualified people do a great job, but Emanalo hasn't done a great job, though I don't think he's been as disastrous as some people think. I think people are above all upset that while everyone else's position is under constant threat, Emanalo's job seems secure. He also hasn't ingratiated himself with his statements.

The fan criticism of him would be the same if he were white.

She'd ender, almost completely agree with your last post.

It is what I'm saying - the culture abramovich has created isn't the fault of the academy. And nor is it their fault if you hire managers who don't like putting young players in.

The one point of disagreement I would have is that I don't think you can impose on a manager that he has to use young players. I don't think that would work. I think it's a recipe for tension, resentment and politicking. It's Zidanes y pavons.

Compare two good but not great seasons in our history under abramovich: 10/11 and 13/14.

In the first title holding ancelotti finished 2nd having had his assistant removed along with a number of first team players. He was immediately sacked, imo probably the worst decision abramovich has made, and it isn't a short list.

In the second mourinho had arrived and had a strong foundational season. We challenged for the first time since ancelotti however we finished third which was not a positional improvement and won nothing. Despite what might have ludicrously been considered a season that could prompt a sacking, there were no hints of that. No briefing to the press from the club and a manager openly talking about what would happen next.

This is the big question, the one that will define our future I think:

Is the second season a sign of increased footballing maturity on the part of abramovich, an understanding that Rome can't be built in a day OR is it an example of an owner recognising he couldn't sack mourinho because of his standing with the fans and reputation within the club?

Personally I think the club is more politically stable than ever, but I would stop short of saying abramovich is a reformed owner who will allow conte to have a season with the results and performances pochettino had last season.

Edited April 22, 201610 yr by g3.7

Is the second season a sign of increased footballing maturity on the part of abramovich, an understanding that Rome can't be built in a day OR is it an example of an owner recognising he couldn't sack mourinho because of his standing with the fans and reputation within the club?

Personally I think the club is more politically stable than ever, but I would stop short of saying abramovich is a reformed owner who will allow conte to have a season with the results and performances pochettino had last season.

 

That is the question I've asked myself. Was it Mourinho's resonance with the fans that meant he survived finishing third when Ancelotti couldn't survive finishing second, or is it as you say some type of maturation of Roman.

 

I don't know if I'm honest. When he sacked Carlo it had long been reported he wanted Guardiola and 'tika-taka', with a younger group of players. He got the latter but not the former and ultimately had to end that process by going with Jose. With no better candidates I think his hand was forced.

 

The thing is now he's appointed Conte who is maybe something of a middle-ground, tactically speaking, between Jose and Pep. The problem is he might be another Carlo, easily disposable.

 

It's why I want Conte to be given the freedom to build his team, let him develop an idea of what this club should be on the pitch because for me talent always has to lead the way. The football men need to be left to do their jobs and the most senior, knowledgeable person in the club come July will be Antonio Conte. It's why despite my pessimism I'll still be hopeful come August because you have to be. Conte is exciting and I hope he stays that way, but it needs to be his way. No backseat coaching.

the accusation was made based on historical evidence of him backing everything African on this site. As for disrespect , I find it abhorrent that you can insinuate members of this forum are racist for questioning the input of Emenalo. its a disgusting thing to do and makes me think your a complete prick, no matter what colour you are.

How many African topics does he have to back before you suggest such a thing? Other than Mikel and Emanalo I can't think of any other African that you would have a go at and suspect the other poster is defending them just because they are the same nationality/race.

Tbh I couldn't care less what a human being like you thinks of me. Would actually be concerned if a keyboard warrior like you thought highly of me really=

Would actually be concerned if a keyboard warrior like you thought highly of me really=

Naah. Don't worry. That would never happen. Just based on your posts btw.

Also, I am not white if you decide to throw that at me.

Edited April 22, 201610 yr by JoseBlues

And there-in lies the problem. You're asking a coach who is judged on results to try and accommodate young, inexperienced players into his squad which may impact on his chance of getting results.

You're asking a coach to put his £5 million per year job on the line for the possibility of long-term gain at the expense of short-term gain, when his boss has dismissed coaches because of short-term failures and the long-term benefits aren't likely to affect him.

In my opinion, that is the ultimate problem at the heart of this club and is EXACTLY why someone needs to instruct coaches to use young players but also tell them that their job will be safe. That just won't happen here though. It's why we need a person of vision running this club who can reconcile the long-term and the short-term aims of this club, something that Roman has consistently failed to do. He has two speeds.

Win now - which means spending huge amounts of money, his greatest attribute as owner.

Transition/Consolidate - that period after winning when we invariably fail to take the next step, either bringing through young talent or spending having had success.

He doesn't seem to have the skillset to combine the two, and why would he? He's a businessman. But surely even he recognises that he needs to put people into positions of power so that they can run this club better, so that it isn't dependent on his vast wealth? Can't he?

Klopp LVG Pochettino have all brought through youth when under immense pressure. You cannot blame Emanalo because our manager didn't bring through youth. In Jose's case, he said he wanted to be here long term, the board could've sacked him way earlier than they did which highlights their reluctance to pull the plug.

It's so easy. You have a youth player train with the first team. You give him minutes and watch him either shine or faulter. This excuse about instant success doesn't wash with me. As we have seen, not playing youth doesn't guarantee success anyway.

Some coaches know how to work with youth and some don't.

Naah. Don't worry. That would never happen. Just based on your posts btw.

Also, I am not white if you decide to throw that at me.

Happy days then.

I don't care what race you are. And I'm not black but if I sense racial undertones I will say it. I could be wrong I could be right but from certain comments I've read it just makes me wonder sometimes that's all.

Edited April 22, 201610 yr by KonaKai Blue

Klopp LVG Pochettino have all brought through youth when under immense pressure. You cannot blame Emanalo because our manager didn't bring through youth. In Jose's case, he said he wanted to be here long term, the board could've sacked him way earlier than they did which highlights their reluctance to pull the plug.

It's so easy. You have a youth player train with the first team. You give him minutes and watch him either shine or faulter. This excuse about instant success doesn't wash with me. As we have seen, not playing youth doesn't guarantee success anyway.

Some coaches know how to work with youth and some don't.

 

If it's so easy, why has there been only one Academy product come through and establish themselves (and with Loftus-Cheek I'm using that term generously) under Roman Abramovich? Have all our coaches been unable to work with youth?

If it's so easy, why has there been only one Academy product come through and establish themselves (and with Loftus-Cheek I'm using that term generously) under Roman Abramovich? Have all our coaches been unable to work with youth?

No Ancelotti gave games to several youth players, alot more than Jose anyway. We need to change anyway, and I saw your comment about us being defined by Roman's chequebook.

So why slate the board for not splashing the cash to make Jose happy?

If it's so easy, why has there been only one Academy product come through and establish themselves (and with Loftus-Cheek I'm using that term generously) under Roman Abramovich? Have all our coaches been unable to work with youth?

Can you think of a manager we've had that has a good reputation for using young players? The short term goal of trophies always being the emphasis doesnt help but I also dont think we've had anyone who was particularly inclined to bringing through young players in the past 10 years.

Happy days then.

I don't care what race you are. And I'm not black but if I sense racial undertones I will say it. I could be wrong I could be right but from certain comments I've read it just makes me wonder sometimes that's all.

Go on then, show us where you found these racial undertones.

Go on then, show us where you found these racial undertones.

Why don't you show us your evidence of a member always backing Africans?

No Ancelotti gave games to several youth players, alot more than Jose anyway.

 

But I asked 'why has there been only one Academy product come through and establish themselves under Roman?' though.

 

So why slate the board for not splashing the cash to make Jose happy?

 

Because I think that spending on top-class players whilst developing youngsters is the sweet spot for running a top club. For me you develop young players in a structured system, but you can build the framework for that with money.

 

Unfortunately we didn't strengthen the framework in the summer, we weakened it. That's rehashing old points but you get my gist right? We've never struck that balance between winning and building for the future. Ultimately that comes down to Roman.