1 hour ago, Backbiter said:

He was a massive loss - he's a fantastic player - but I'm pretty sure we did all we could to keep him. He was only 15 or 16 when he left and was free to join Bayern.

He was 16. Same old story BB. Apparently left because he felt he would have more chance of progression at Bayern. He made his debut for them at 17.

Shame really as he went just before Lampard took over, and with the transfer ban, Hazard leaving etc. he might have got an opportunity here sooner than he thought. 

I also read that Bayern only came in for him after we knocked them back on CHO. If that's true it's a double kick in the nuts. Getting £50 mill for CHO and keeping Musiala!!

Edited September 22, 20232 yr by just

Knowing our luck Musiala would've torn his ACL and CHO would absolutely flourish at Bayern without injury. 

Just how things work with us. 

3 hours ago, Backbiter said:

He could have been on loan at Ipswich now.

 

3 hours ago, just said:

Which is probably where Musiala would have been now if he had stayed with us.

Sorry but this narrative is ridiculous, players end up where they were always going to end up (barring bad injury).

Solanke for example left us for "more chances" and quickly showed why he wasn't getting any.

6 hours ago, RMH said:

The midfield was one of the weakest links in the team and has been properly addressed. With Enzo and I hope that Caicedo and Lavia we have a very good midfield. And we even have Santos and Casadei coming up in the next couple of seasons. I think that we will have one of the best midfields in the coming years.

It really wasn't. Our weakest link was our attack and keeper, everything in-between was working well.

54 minutes ago, Argo said:

 

Sorry but this narrative is ridiculous, players end up where they were always going to end up (barring bad injury).

Solanke for example left us for "more chances" and quickly showed why he wasn't getting any.

So clubs play no role in players' development and their careers are destined to pan out the way they do?

 

I never realised.

10 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

So clubs play no role in players' development and their careers are destined to pan out the way they do?

 

I never realised.

Bellingham was far too talented to end up at Ipswich, even if we ignored him for the first team another elite club would have took advantage.

If all young players need to do is to leave big bad Chelsea to thrive then why haven't Solanke, Ugbo, Houghton and Brewster found their way at elite level once they "escaped"?

1 hour ago, Argo said:

Bellingham was far too talented to end up at Ipswich, even if we ignored him for the first team another elite club would have took advantage.

If all young players need to do is to leave big bad Chelsea to thrive then why haven't Solanke, Ugbo, Houghton and Brewster found their way at elite level once they "escaped"?

Pointing out that most youngsters who jump ship do not then go on to reach the very top is not the same as claiming "players end up where they were always going to end up (barring bad injury)."  Some clubs just develop players better than others. I am not trying to argue that Chelsea are failures at identifying and nurturing talent. It's just not the case that bad injuries are the only reason some players fail to reach their full potential.

1 hour ago, Backbiter said:

Pointing out that most youngsters who jump ship do not then go on to reach the very top is not the same as claiming "players end up where they were always going to end up (barring bad injury)."  Some clubs just develop players better than others. I am not trying to argue that Chelsea are failures at identifying and nurturing talent. It's just not the case that bad injuries are the only reason some players fail to reach their full potential.

Ok but we're probably the best around when it comes to developing players upto 18, so I'm not sure where this narrative we'd coach world class ability out of the likes of Bellingham comes from, if anything he'd be even better if he grew up in Cobham.

The problem for our young players, is that for the last 20 years we've been an elite club, where the managers never lasted long, because success was demanded. This meant no manager was ever happy to risk blooding the youngsters in properly. If they weren't an instant success, they got frozen out. More talented players were bought in, blocking the academy route to the first team. Even some of the imports suffered the cold shoulder, Salah and Debruyne being prime examples.

Lampards first time was the only occasion where a manager could bring the academy players through.

The problem for the academy players at Chelsea is when a vacancy in the first team occurs a new guy is bought in to fill their shoes!  So, the home grown boys never get much 1st team experience.

Makes you wonder whether the real goal of Chelsea's academy is to make new players to be sold later for a profit.

 

8 hours ago, Ajbod said:

The problem for our young players, is that for the last 20 years we've been an elite club, where the managers never lasted long, because success was demanded. This meant no manager was ever happy to risk blooding the youngsters in properly. If they weren't an instant success, they got frozen out. More talented players were bought in, blocking the academy route to the first team. Even some of the imports suffered the cold shoulder, Salah and Debruyne being prime examples.

Lampards first time was the only occasion where a manager could bring the academy players through.

Absolutely spot on. 

8 hours ago, Ajbod said:

The problem for our young players, is that for the last 20 years we've been an elite club, where the managers never lasted long, because success was demanded. This meant no manager was ever happy to risk blooding the youngsters in properly. If they weren't an instant success, they got frozen out. More talented players were bought in, blocking the academy route to the first team. Even some of the imports suffered the cold shoulder, Salah and Debruyne being prime examples.

Lampards first time was the only occasion where a manager could bring the academy players through.

Nailed it, its why I was gutted that Lampard got sacked. Nothing to do with him being who he was, he obviously had failings as a coach. It was because we finally looked in a position to create squad stability, an actual pathway for young players to get to the 1st team squad, a manager given time to build a team and playing style over time and get rid of other managers players we didn't need. Rather than the cycle of New manager bloating the squad.

Didn't last long though, unfortunately. Just back to the same old after some defeats.

Was hoping it might change with Pochettino, I was against us bringing him in but still hoped he would be given time by our fans, but no, a few poor results and imbeciles already want him gone, with d**khead calling him a c**t etc.

Edited September 23, 20232 yr by dkw

9 hours ago, Ajbod said:

The problem for our young players, is that for the last 20 years we've been an elite club, where the managers never lasted long, because success was demanded. This meant no manager was ever happy to risk blooding the youngsters in properly. If they weren't an instant success, they got frozen out. More talented players were bought in, blocking the academy route to the first team. Even some of the imports suffered the cold shoulder, Salah and Debruyne being prime examples.

Lampards first time was the only occasion where a manager could bring the academy players through.

I know people like to use salah as example because he turned into superstars but he is a bad example to use. 

I personally think we will never see this version of Salah if he didn't move to Italy. Moving to Italy allow him to develop in easier league so he can slowly improve his game especially physically. 

KDB case is more complicated. On one hand, I was unhappy when we sold kdb, on the other hand Oscar was very good especially as complement for Hazard who was clearly a generational level talent. 

 

 

 

How has Enzo been after the 1st half? I have so much to say, but will hold on until full time 

Good luck with that Koke!

Played well in the pivot for 2 games, then since Chukwuemeka got injured he has been moved further forward and looks half the player. 

@Argois right on this, he is a poor number 10.

Edited September 24, 20232 yr by axman2526

1 hour ago, big blue said:

Played well in the pivot for 2 games, then since Chukwuemeka got injured he has been moved further forward and looks half the player. 

I don't get why Poch plays him at 10. He should have been with Caicedo today with Gallagher in the more forward role   

World Class 8.

Bang Average 10.

 

5 minutes ago, carrickblue said:

I don't get why Poch plays him at 10. He should have been with Caicedo today with Gallagher in the more forward role   

Strange mate, same as Colwill at left back, and Chilwell at left wing. No balance.

Gusto Disasi Colwill Chilwell

Enzo Caicedo

Sterling Palmer Mudryk

Broja/Jackson

 

At this point I dont see why we are playing anything else. Silva shouldnt be starting, he isnt really adding a great in deal in the short term, and obviously he isnt for long term. Might as well build partnerships. 

3 left backs on the bench is just really strange. 

Even Gallagher as captain when the club tries to sell him to spurs is very strange. I like Gallagher, but let's be honest, if he is playing every week it probably means the team has issues.

Poch has ruined him by playing him up the pitch, I wonder where all the fans who were championing him being played in an advanced role are now? Heard a lot of that last season.

17 minutes ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

Poch has ruined him by playing him up the pitch, I wonder where all the fans who were championing him being played in an advanced role are now? Heard a lot of that last season.

It was worth trying, after the injuries to Nkunku and Chukwuemeka, but it hasn't worked, and I'd move him back alongside Caicedo if it was up to me, and play Palmer at #10.

All of which means of course that there is no role for Gallagher, so I can't see Poch doing it, as Conor seems to be the first name on his team sheet right now ... !

21 minutes ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

Poch has ruined him by playing him up the pitch, I wonder where all the fans who were championing him being played in an advanced role are now? Heard a lot of that last season.

There is a difference between someone playing as a 10 and someone being part of a double pivot but being allowed some positional freedom. No one was asking for Enzo to play like Kaka.

2 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

It was worth trying, after the injuries to Nkunku and Chukwuemeka, but it hasn't worked, and I'd move him back alongside Caicedo if it was up to me, and play Palmer at #10.

All of which means of course that there is no role for Gallagher, so I can't see Poch doing it, as Conor seems to be the first name on his team sheet right now ... !

Totally agree with Enzo. Not sure if it is just the change of position or if he is already wanting out. 

2 minutes ago, reparto corse said:

There is a difference between someone playing as a 10 and someone being part of a double pivot but being allowed some positional freedom. No one was asking for Enzo to play like Kaka.

TBF there were people who wanted him to play where Felix was playing last season (which was one of a list of the other reasons they used to justify him not being kept)