4 hours ago, Zeta said:

Lukaku, despite being very good on loan, was told he would be behind Torres, who everyone knew was sh*t, it's not a surprise really that he wanted to leave and actually play games.

Chalobah may well have been better than the other options they had at Burnley, if given time to bed into the team, but as I said, managers will always favour their own players over ones they have on loan, Chalobah is hardly the first loanee to find that out the hard way, and he won't be the last. Besides, that was 2 years ago, he's a better player now than he was then.

 

Lukaku was offered a role of immediate back up to Costa in 2014, he wanted to be undisputed number one and at that time he wasn't better than Eto'o let alone Costa.

It's a myth on the whole that managers ignore loanees, tyeres been numerous success storys from premier league loans. I'm all for a young player coming through, infact I can't wait for it, because then maybe the averaged ones will stop getting hyped beyond all extremes.

34 minutes ago, Argo said:

Lukaku was offered a role of immediate back up to Costa in 2014, he wanted to be undisputed number one and at that time he wasn't better than Eto'o let alone Costa.

The bolded part is based on which fact exactly?

The fact that we lost the league because of sh*t strikers and not being able to score against villa, norwich in the last 5 games? Lukaku was much better than grandpa etoo in 13/14

Lets say he was not.I remember Jose using that "egg" analogy or the "pony" analogy. How exactly was he helping the egg/pony to develop by sending them on useless loans instead of using them for 35+ have beens. 

Edited June 24, 20179 yr by didierforever

16 minutes ago, didierforever said:

The bolded part is based on which fact exactly?

The fact that we lost the league because of sh*t strikers and not being able to score against villa, norwich in the last 5 games? Lukaku was much better than grandpa etoo in 13/14

Lets say he was not.I remember Jose using that "egg" analogy or the "pony" analogy. How exactly was he helping the egg/pony to develop by sending them on useless loans instead of using them for 35+ have beens. 

Eto'o scored the winner in the home games vs all the big teams bar City plus one in the CL knockout stage. His experience made Hazard and a better player (he said so himself).

Then when they went to Everton Eto'o was better initially, someone after the 6-3 summed it up nicely "two players with a point to prove (to Jose) but only one had the quality to make it".

5 minutes ago, Argo said:

Eto'o scored the winner in the home games vs all the big teams bar City plus one in the CL knockout stage. His experience made Hazard and a better player (he said so himself).

Then when they went to Everton Eto'o was better initially, someone after the 6-3 summed it up nicely "two players with a point to prove (to Jose) but only one had the quality to make it".

So basically you are basing your opinion on one performance against Chelsea that etoo was better than lukaku in 13-14 and some random quote. Instead of the fact that lukaku had 36 goals and 15 assists to etoo's 20 goals and 11 assists. That seems perfectly fair to me.

Against big teams, in a jose team. Which basically means, etoo scored a lot of goals when we were playing on the counter. Even in 13-14 that was lukaku's strength. Etoo was as bad as Lukaku against packed defences which infact ended up costing the league.

"His experience made Hazard and a better player (he said so himself)." How is this valid for who was better player? If this was the case, then we should have had etoo as a coach/some manager. Not as a player.

 

5 hours ago, Zeta said:

...Chalobah may well have been better than the other options they had at Burnley, if given time to bed into the team, but as I said, managers will always favour their own players over ones they have on loan, Chalobah is hardly the first loanee to find that out the hard way, and he won't be the last...

 

I agree with @Argo about this except I'd go even stronger than he did and say this idea is a complete myth which is utterly debunked by the facts. Managers don't prefer their own players, they prefer points. They'll select the players they feel are most likely to help accumulate them.

Studge got starts on loan. So did Thibaut, Tammy,  Andreas, Bertrand, Izzy, Lew, numerous others and Rom himself of course. If the manager thinks you're his best option, you'll get games. If you are not however, you'll be overlooked.

It's tempting to think players should spend loans only at clubs where they are certain to play but there is always pressure to show progression and to edge up the levels. Sooner or later players find a level which is beyond them.

Just now, OhForAGreavsie said:

I agree with @Argo about this except I'd go even stronger than he did and say this idea is a complete myth which is utterly debunked by the facts. Managers don't prefer their own players, they prefer points. They'll select the players they feel are most likely to help accumulate them.

Studge got starts on loan. So did Thibaut, Tammy,  Andreas, Bertrand, Izzy, Lew, numerous others and Rom himself of course. If the manager thinks you're his best option, you'll get games. If you are not however, you'll be overlooked.

It's tempting to think players should spend loans only at clubs where they are certain to play but there is always pressure to show progression and to edge up the levels. Sooner or later players find a level which is beyond them.

If the loan player is much better, then yes, because they will want to win, but if there is not much to choose between them, they'll always go for their player. It's easy to say, Chalobah at 19/20 wasn't getting games at Burnley, so he can't have been any good, but if he was the finished article and already better than all the senior players in his position, he wouldn't have needed a loan there in the first place. The point of the loan is to progress as a player and improve, which requires faith from a manager. 

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 20:41, Zeta said:

He's 1 year older than Chalobah isn't he? Has played 45 minutes for France. If we really gave Chalobah a shot, he could be just as good, if not better by this time next year, and have cost us nothing, whilst bringing through a young, English player into the first team.

I just don't get this signing at all.

But Conte did gave youth a shot in the League Cup. They lost against West Ham which in Conte's mind says it all really.

2 hours ago, didierforever said:

So basically you are basing your opinion on one performance against Chelsea that etoo was better than lukaku in 13-14 and some random quote. Instead of the fact that lukaku had 36 goals and 15 assists to etoo's 20 goals and 11 assists. That seems perfectly fair to me.

Against big teams, in a jose team. Which basically means, etoo scored a lot of goals when we were playing on the counter. Even in 13-14 that was lukaku's strength. Etoo was as bad as Lukaku against packed defences which infact ended up costing the league.

"His experience made Hazard and a better player (he said so himself)." How is this valid for who was better player? If this was the case, then we should have had etoo as a coach/some manager. Not as a player.

 

No im not basing it on some random quote, but what I saw with my own eyes. Sammy may not of been the monster who lit up the Nou Camp but as soon as he was up to speed he was class. You cite those games we didn't score in as why we lost the league and you are right, but Eto'o didn't actually play in any of them and if he did I'm certain either he or someone else would have scored.

I'm not saying we should have even let Lukaku go that summer (we should have had both on rotation and let thall who shall not be named go) but I believe signing him was a masterstroke and if he didn't get injured vs Arsenal we would have won the title.

49 minutes ago, Deino said:

But Conte did gave youth a shot in the League Cup. They lost against West Ham which in Conte's mind says it all really.

Gave youth a shot v Watford too, I seem to recollect we narrowly won 4-3

Edited June 24, 20179 yr by the special one

36 minutes ago, Argo said:

No im not basing it on some random quote, but what I saw with my own eyes. Sammy may not of been the monster who lit up the Nou Camp but as soon as he was up to speed he was class. You cite those games we didn't score in as why we lost the league and you are right, but Eto'o didn't actually play in any of them and if he did I'm certain either he or someone else would have scored.

I'm not saying we should have even let Lukaku go that summer (we should have had both on rotation and let thall who shall not be named go) but I believe signing him was a masterstroke and if he didn't get injured vs Arsenal we would have won the title.

One goal coming off the bench through a set piece compared to Lukaku's 20 goal season. Sorry mate, but I actually cant agree with how etoo was anywhere as good as Lukaku when he has more goals, assists and literally had etoo sitting on the bench.

Strikers not scoring enough was a general problem in 13/14. Those 3 games were just off the top of my head. 

I love DD, but both these transfers (DD and etoo) were as useless as they come. And it seems a trend with Jose (now Zlatan). I would rather he have given lukaku/rashford/martial that gave time and atleast TRIED to develop players who could have been great for their respective clubs instead of wasting them out of loan/wings. Signing etoo might end up costing us 70mil pounds.

41 minutes ago, the special one said:

Gave youth a shot v Watford too, I seem to recollect we narrowly won 4-3

Putting in 11 youngsters in a dead rubber is not "giving a shot". Giving youth a shot would be actually trusting a player and playing him in games that matter (be it as a replacement/squad role or as a first team role). 

I dont agree that we should not be buying bakayoko, believe me. But I would also love for a couple of Youth players namely Ake and Andreas been given important roles in the coming 55-60 game season.

2 minutes ago, didierforever said:

One goal coming off the bench through a set piece compared to Lukaku's 20 goal season. Sorry mate, but I actually cant agree with how etoo was anywhere as good as Lukaku when he has more goals, assists and literally had etoo sitting on the bench.

Strikers not scoring enough was a general problem in 13/14. Those 3 games were just off the top of my head. 

I love DD, but both these transfers (DD and etoo) were as useless as they come. And it seems a trend with Jose (now Zlatan). I would rather he have given lukaku/rashford/martial that gave time and atleast TRIED to develop players who could have been great for their respective clubs instead of wasting them out of loan/wings. Signing etoo might end up costing us 70mil pounds.

I agree, it was a stupid move on Jose's part to bring Eto'o and play Oscar instead of perservering with Lukaku and KdB and actually create a system for them to thrive in. If only Jose wasn't so hellbent on 4231

11 hours ago, didierforever said:

The bolded part is based on which fact exactly?

The fact that we lost the league because of sh*t strikers and not being able to score against villa, norwich in the last 5 games? Lukaku was much better than grandpa etoo in 13/14

Lets say he was not.I remember Jose using that "egg" analogy or the "pony" analogy. How exactly was he helping the egg/pony to develop by sending them on useless loans instead of using them for 35+ have beens. 

mate it was lukaku that wanted to leave as he wanted to lead the line for Chelsea at 19, Jose was happy to keep him, lukaku requested to move.

2 hours ago, DonAntonio said:

mate it was lukaku that wanted to leave as he wanted to lead the line for Chelsea at 19, Jose was happy to keep him, lukaku requested to move.

"Keep him" as in let our best striker in the roster rot on the bench rather than make him our focal point and give him the perfect experience and exposure, that too in a world cup year.

Lukaku "requested" a move, as did KDB, Mata, Bertrand, Luis because Jose literally had his favourites (like Oscar and over the mountains Etoo and DD). Sorry, but Lukaku requested for a move because of the cirsumstances and cant say I blame him.

There was a comparison between Matic and Baka. Bakayoko is way better in getting the ball from the oppo but he does nothing for attack where as Matic's attacking skills and numbers are pretty good. Not sure if Kante-Bakayoko would be even a working duo.

This argument has been going round for as long as I've been a member of the forum. Give them a chance/they have to prove themselves.

I think the key here is that players can do differently depending on the circumstances and system of play. Because Nat didn't do well at Burnley can simply mean his strengths didn't align to Dyche's system. Talent doesn't exist in a vacuum it is contextual.

My view is that Nat is good enough to play a role in our system. So is Ake. If Bakayoko is being bought in as cover that is concerning to me because we have that. I think if we are buying cover we should be getting a box to box player. 

3 hours ago, Spiller86 said:

This argument has been going round for as long as I've been a member of the forum. Give them a chance/they have to prove themselves.

I think the key here is that players can do differently depending on the circumstances and system of play. Because Nat didn't do well at Burnley can simply mean his strengths didn't align to Dyche's system. Talent doesn't exist in a vacuum it is contextual.

My view is that Nat is good enough to play a role in our system. So is Ake. If Bakayoko is being bought in as cover that is concerning to me because we have that. I think if we are buying cover we should be getting a box to box player. 

 

Just to back some of that up,

 

Harry Kane, rummord to be worth over 100 million right now and maybe one of the best center forwads in the game today. 

5 goals in 18 for Leyton Orient

7 in 22 for Millwall 

none in 3 at Norwich

2 in 13 at Leicester.

 

I would hardly refer to that as doing well, in those leagues etc. The loan system is very hit and miss, coaches and teams don't tend to over invest in a player that won't bring them future prosperity, i think most of the time they are looking at them as squad fillers in-case the worst happens. The championship is a bit difference is because these boys tend to be good enough to be difference makers, see Nate at Watford for example. But in the prem, the gap is smaller and these players need investment in development. Which as stated previously, managers don't seem that keen to do. I personally don't see the point of Tammy going of to swans. 

On 2017-6-24 at 04:21, DonAntonio said:

That's totally not true if rashford was a Chelsea player he would play, we don't have anyone good enough our youth would play at no top club and that's just a fact we blamed mou yet mou played rashford in big games, nacho would also play for us, it's very rare in today's football youngsters play unless phenomenal, there is too much at risk for the managers, they don't win they get sacked why would they risk their careers to play youth? Modern football isn't set up for top clubs to play youth that's the system not Chelsea. Are managers think that they would not play the best players possible, if a youth player is good why wouldn't he play them, again why would he play an inferior player to develop them at the cost of his job? Get over youth won't be seeing it at top clubs unless some rule changes or a change in structure 

Absolutely not true. If Rashford was a chelsea player he wouldn't even have made his debut yet. Hell, if it wasn't for Van Gaal and an injury crisis he wouldn't have made his Utd debut yet. Same with Harry Kane, if their strikers weren't useless that season he would never have been given a chance after his poor loan spells. A young player needs an opportunity and a handful of games in a row to show themselves. We'll never have a youngster make it here playing half a game and then not playing again for a month. De Bruyne is probably the biggest example of this. People saying he wasn't good enough when he was playing a game every other month, moved to Germany and proved his class and is now the best playmaker in the league. 

39 minutes ago, barak81 said:

 

Just to back some of that up,

 

Harry Kane, rummord to be worth over 100 million right now and maybe one of the best center forwads in the game today. 

5 goals in 18 for Leyton Orient

7 in 22 for Millwall 

none in 3 at Norwich

2 in 13 at Leicester.

 

I would hardly refer to that as doing well, in those leagues etc. The loan system is very hit and miss, coaches and teams don't tend to over invest in a player that won't bring them future prosperity, i think most of the time they are looking at them as squad fillers in-case the worst happens. The championship is a bit difference is because these boys tend to be good enough to be difference makers, see Nate at Watford for example. But in the prem, the gap is smaller and these players need investment in development. Which as stated previously, managers don't seem that keen to do. I personally don't see the point of Tammy going of to swans. 

I think this is why we're now demanding playing time for anyone we loan.

I assume the reason we are sending Tammy on loan to Swansea is because Clement is aware of his talent from his time here.

37 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Absolutely not true. If Rashford was a chelsea player he wouldn't even have made his debut yet. Hell, if it wasn't for Van Gaal and an injury crisis he wouldn't have made his Utd debut yet. Same with Harry Kane, if their strikers weren't useless that season he would never have been given a chance after his poor loan spells. A young player needs an opportunity and a handful of games in a row to show themselves. We'll never have a youngster make it here playing half a game and then not playing again for a month. De Bruyne is probably the biggest example of this. People saying he wasn't good enough when he was playing a game every other month, moved to Germany and proved his class and is now the best playmaker in the league. 

I think Gus had a chance with RLC, he should have told him, look you have 10 games, I'm going start you in 10 games and unless you gass you wont come of, 10 games to dominate and prove you're self. If a player thinks he has one game he will usually struggle to show his best form 

32 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Absolutely not true. If Rashford was a chelsea player he wouldn't even have made his debut yet. Hell, if it wasn't for Van Gaal and an injury crisis he wouldn't have made his Utd debut yet. Same with Harry Kane, if their strikers weren't useless that season he would never have been given a chance after his poor loan spells. A young player needs an opportunity and a handful of games in a row to show themselves. We'll never have a youngster make it here playing half a game and then not playing again for a month. De Bruyne is probably the biggest example of this. People saying he wasn't good enough when he was playing a game every other month, moved to Germany and proved his class and is now the best playmaker in the league. 

Rashford if picked on Merit wouldn't be making the Man U team. He is an extremely average footballer who is just very quick see Adama Traore. Lingard as bad as he is is a better footballer than Rashford.
The only reason he is being picked is pressure from the board as part of the United way is developing youth and after his few goals a year ago is being massively hyped.
I do not believe that if Mou had the choice he would be starting Rashford and can see him following a similar route to obscurity as someone like Januzaj or a little bit better off and be the next Sterling and turn into a average footballer. 

6 hours ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Absolutely not true. If Rashford was a chelsea player he wouldn't even have made his debut yet. 

Right so who is playing him at Man U? The Chelsea manager who never plays youth...I'm sorry when you say Chelsea won't play youth do you mean Roman, the board, the fans, Stamford the lion? As far as I know the manager selects the team and no one else, even if it's encourage by the board to play youth no one picks the team and the minutes given except the manager, it's down to the coach and the 2 time Chelsea coach who doesn't play youth starts rashford so please tell me is it conte that doesn't  play youth? The only argument you could have is chelsea have more pressure on the manager that he will lose his job easily so the managers won't risk playing youth but again it's down to the manager, mou doesn't play rashford under pressure to squeeze in youth he plays him in big games because he is a good option, that's a managerial choice so again "Chelsea wouldn't play him" is a fallacy it's down to the manager. 

26 minutes ago, DonAntonio said:

Right so who is playing him at Man U? The Chelsea manager who never plays youth...I'm sorry when you say Chelsea won't play youth do you mean Roman, the board, the fans, Stamford the lion? As far as I know the manager selects the team and no one else, even if it's encourage by the board to play youth no one picks the team and the minutes given except the manager, it's down to the coach and the 2 time Chelsea coach who doesn't play youth starts rashford so please tell me is it conte that doesn't  play youth? The only argument you could have is chelsea have more pressure on the manager that he will lose his job easily so the managers won't risk playing youth but again it's down to the manager, mou doesn't play rashford under pressure to squeeze in youth he plays him in big games because he is a good option, that's a managerial choice so again "Chelsea wouldn't play him" is a fallacy it's down to the manager. 

Agree to disagree on that then the only time I saw Mou actually choose to play Rashford ahead of other options was against Chelsea when he was more interested in the europa league.

If Ibrahimovic hadn't got injured I doubt he would have had over 1300 BPL minutes says it all to me really, still only managed 1700 minutes (5 goals 1 assist).

1 hour ago, DonAntonio said:

Right so who is playing him at Man U? The Chelsea manager who never plays youth...I'm sorry when you say Chelsea won't play youth do you mean Roman, the board, the fans, Stamford the lion? As far as I know the manager selects the team and no one else, even if it's encourage by the board to play youth no one picks the team and the minutes given except the manager, it's down to the coach and the 2 time Chelsea coach who doesn't play youth starts rashford so please tell me is it conte that doesn't  play youth? The only argument you could have is chelsea have more pressure on the manager that he will lose his job easily so the managers won't risk playing youth but again it's down to the manager, mou doesn't play rashford under pressure to squeeze in youth he plays him in big games because he is a good option, that's a managerial choice so again "Chelsea wouldn't play him" is a fallacy it's down to the manager. 

You couldn't have missed my point any more if you'd tried. The point was that Rashford had a run of games to prove himself under Van Gaal. As did Kane at Tottenham. They had a straight run of 10-15 games to get out there and show what they have. If Utd and Tottenham didn't have a crisis at the time they wouldn't have been given that opportunity and i'll put my money on Rashford still wouldn't have had his debut and Kane would have been released. At Chelsea they will never ever get that chance. Even a couple of seasons ago when our season was over in February we still didn't bother giving youth a chance.

17 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

You couldn't have missed my point any more if you'd tried. The point was that Rashford had a run of games to prove himself under Van Gaal. As did Kane at Tottenham. They had a straight run of 10-15 games to get out there and show what they have. If Utd and Tottenham didn't have a crisis at the time they wouldn't have been given that opportunity and i'll put my money on Rashford still wouldn't have had his debut and Kane would have been released. At Chelsea they will never ever get that chance. Even a couple of seasons ago when our season was over in February we still didn't bother giving youth a chance.

That period really bothered me. Still does to this day. Safe, nothing to play for, interim nanager, why the f*ck not give time to the kids? Not as if we needed the extra money being 10th instead of 14th brings

Edited June 25, 20179 yr by TheChelseaBlues