test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tomo

How do we translate our success (identity wise) from the youth team/women's football to the men's first team?

Started by Tomo,

A lot is made about the way the club is run from top to bottom and how it is affecting the first team and why we keep having average/shit seasons, now while it may be true to an extent if it was such a huge issue we would see other areas of the club affected, but outside of the first team, things actually run as smoothly as you could ever wish. Our youth teams dominate to an extent not seen since the Busby Babes and the Women are constantly there or thereabouts, so it's clear there's a structure here that runs down the levels successfully so why are the men's first team failing where every other Chelsea side are succeeding?

Do we not appoint appropriate managers to keep the steam of success up? Mourinho and Conte were successful with the remit they were given but their style and ethos was the opposite of the way we play at youth level (even if the youth managers changed formation to Conte's 3atb when he arrived). We have tried every formula appointing managers from serial winners to stubborn philosophers, could we have been missing a trick all along with the boot room policy? We do it upto the reserves with the managers but after that the route is blocked, maybe the left field route of promoting from within (or Lamps/Jody) will be the start of sorting the identity crisis for the first team? All our successful youth/women sides have Chelsea people incharge who get the club, maybe it's time we tried that with the first team as well?

Another reason could be the players aren't as big fans per se of the club as in the other teams. Now while i think the notion that they turn it on and off when they please is bolax, we do lack a core of players who have Chelsea integrated into them (so to speak) compared to the last era or even the late 90's, and that could mean they subconsciously don't go the extra mile.

Either way the club are failing the first team despite everything running smoothly underneath, so the reason for that needs to be identified sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post.

The only starting point for me is start with a DOF, the in between man, between board and manager. The recruitment is rank poor, not only is it rank poor but the choice to constantly ignore the sparkling diamonds we have is beyond stupid now.

Look at the keeper thing for example, we spent 70 odd million on Kepa, when screaming out to everyone was a top quality striker, and still is now. Now it's not all about spending but integration is as big IMO. We live i a day and age it's all about the money spent, are the people who take charge scared to try these young lads? Why does it always need to be 50M outlay, time after time, and not just that but we pay 30M for Drinkwater and daft money for Zappacosta.

My mind just boggles.

Superblue_1986, Tomo and Fernando like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Tomo! I can't really comment on the women as I have very little knowledge of this so will keep this just between the first team and youth team for the men.

Firstly there is seemingly far more long term planning put into the youth team. There are people at the club that have been there for a number of years, in particular Neil Bath who would essentially be the director of football within the youth setup. There is also a plan put in place for continuity where coaches within the youth setup are essentially groomed to eventually become assistant or managers of a particular age group. The likes of Jody Morris started as a coach and worked his way to the role of manager with experience within the setup as a whole. That level of continuity helps the youth players as they progress through the age groups and also helps the coaches be comfortable of their requirements and knowledgeable of the pools of players coming through.

The club had the right idea previously having a coach in place that worked with multiple managers to help keep the continuity (Steve Clarke, Ray Wilkins, Steve Holland, etc) but it is on a much smaller scale. The club's recruitment of managers too is a huge problem because we just go for the biggest name not considering any continuity between managers. For example when City planned for Guardiola they have Pellegrini in before him who at least wanted to play with an attacking style. We have no plan like that and it is why we are left with a squad of players where some will fit with certain managers and some with others.

The other big issue that leads on from the above for me is not having a director of football or 'football people' on the board helping to make decisions. A director of football would be putting such plans in place for a vision and would as a result not only recruit the right players to suit a focused style, but also appoint managers that suit said players and vice versa. Such a plan in place and somebody qualified to oversee this should also be the missing element for youth integration also. At the moment I've no idea who Neil Bath would be in contact with but I have doubts Sarri is invested in this and I also doubt it's high on Marina's list of priorities too. Having a director of football that can liaise with Neil Bath, take the time to watch the academy groups, etc and plan for a first team squad that is built using some of these players is vital.

I agree with you that the further the club moves away from being able to bring through homegrown talent and lacks real characters and leaders, it needs to find that from alternative sources outside of the players and that would be seriously considering one or more of the old guard to come back into the coaching set up or as manager. The most obvious one is Lamps, and if Jody Morris were to come in with him we'd have someone not far removed from the academy which could prove to be a key link to getting these young players into the first team.

Tomo, kc_blue and Fernando like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Special Juan said:

Good post.

The only starting point for me is start with a DOF, the in between man, between board and manager. The recruitment is rank poor, not only is it rank poor but the choice to constantly ignore the sparkling diamonds we have is beyond stupid now.

Look at the keeper thing for example, we spent 70 odd million on Kepa, when screaming out to everyone was a top quality striker, and still is now. Now it's not all about spending but integration is as big IMO. We live i a day and age it's all about the money spent, are the people who take charge scared to try these young lads? Why does it always need to be 50M outlay, time after time, and not just that but we pay 30M for Drinkwater and daft money for Zappacosta.

My mind just boggles.

The idea that we don't spend money anymore is rubbish. We may not play in the same market as United and City but there are more than enough quality players that we could pursue and afford. Our problem, especially in recent times has been the quality of our signings. This is partly for me due to changing managers with completely different styles which may not suit players brought in a year or two beforehand. And we waste so much money on squad players.

I look at our squad over the last couple of seasons and how much dross we need to get rid of. If somebody was bold enough to back the academy players to make up the numbers of the first team squad we would have a lot of money available to be able to target 2, maybe 3 players every season to maximise quality over quantity.

Bulka, Ampadu, Christensen, James, Mount, Loftus-Cheek, Hudson-Odoi, Abraham. That is 8 players we could easily use within the first team squad that can develop and be trusted to play games. They don't need to be first choice but they need to be given opportunities. All of which are good enough and have the potential to be relied on. As an example Trent Alexander Arnold and Joe Gomez didn't start off first choice at Liverpool but they were trusted to be part of the first team squad and would be counted on and trusted to play a role in games. Then when they were offered opportunities they took them and Liverpool now have two very good young homegrown players in their defence who could be fixtures for years for little or no outlay. If Chelsea followed the same plan, somebody like Reece James could backup Azpilicueta initially. That in turn would afford Azpi chances to be rested and pressure him to play at a high level or he'll be dropped and hopefully over the next season or so Reece James with chances would develop into his successor. It really isn't rocket science it's just having faith and trust.

Alabama and kc_blue like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need someone like Pochetino. 

Sadly the managers we keep getting don't want to go down this road. 

The work has to be done here, in getting a manger committed to this. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Fernando said:

We need someone like Pochetino. 

Sadly the managers we keep getting don't want to go down this road. 

The work has to be done here, in getting a manger committed to this. 

 

Pochetino has done a great job at Spurs but for him the test will be if he can replicate that at a bigger club. Spurs fans can say what they want but in terms of size, budget, success they're a fair few notches below the rest of the top 6 in England. Under greater pressure to deliver success and with a bigger budget to use would he still rely on both buying younger players and promoting academy players.

Some managers will take that next step and be a huge success, others won't. 

There is an element of luck and timing involved with appointing a manager to be the right fit. If Chelsea go in on a longer plan that will rebuild the squad, improve the quality of football and cultivate the talented academy it already possesses it needs the right manager to spark that.

With Sarri, the lack of trophies won in his career doesn't bother me because someone like Poch is in exactly the same boat. It's other areas like his inflexible and stubborn nature that are his downfall. I'm not concerned with getting a proven commodity as manager, I'm more concerned with appointing the right fit at the club who is prepared to join with fresh ideas, tactically flexible and give some opportunities to younger talent.

Fernando and kc_blue like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poch is a winless wonder . He would never come to us no matter what money was thrown at  him. The Spunks are huge in terms of UK support ( even bigger than us) , not internationally,  but have owners whose love is business not  trophies.  He seems loyal to them and we would not want to dirty our hands with this Argentinean nearly man.

Our managers have to deliver from the start . Occasionally it goes wrong but most of the time has proved ultra successful.  We are lucky that Roman sets such high standards which has been our benchmark of trophies. 

We still spend hugely and we must except that this is a hit and miss policy but more times pays off long term. Look at Arse with their repulsive wig wearing disinterested American owner , God would strike us down if that happened to our glorious club. They are in state of permanent hell with this capitalist buffon.

As ladies football l have no knowledge,  as only 25 people watch a game live it has no relevance . The western media seem to over exposure,  promote for political reasons but largely the world has no interest. Greco Roman wrestling draws larger crowds but has no exposure as the West is driven by liberal effete  diversity fantatism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other two are grass roots and we have attempted to mow the lawn with a combine harvester. 

Is a shame really I haven't taken to women's football seeing as baby number 6 is on the way and they have all been girls so it's the only chance I got to see a kid of mine play for Chelsea. 

Youth I always had an interest in but waned in recent times due us not using them, that should change a bit now tho. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/02/2019 at 9:29 AM, Romans disciples said:

Poch is a winless wonder . He would never come to us no matter what money was thrown at  him. The Spunks are huge in terms of UK support ( even bigger than us) , not internationally,  but have owners whose love is business not  trophies.  He seems loyal to them and we would not want to dirty our hands with this Argentinean nearly man.

Our managers have to deliver from the start . Occasionally it goes wrong but most of the time has proved ultra successful.  We are lucky that Roman sets such high standards which has been our benchmark of trophies. 

We still spend hugely and we must except that this is a hit and miss policy but more times pays off long term. Look at Arse with their repulsive wig wearing disinterested American owner , God would strike us down if that happened to our glorious club. They are in state of permanent hell with this capitalist buffon.

As ladies football l have no knowledge,  as only 25 people watch a game live it has no relevance . The western media seem to over exposure,  promote for political reasons but largely the world has no interest. Greco Roman wrestling draws larger crowds but has no exposure as the West is driven by liberal effete  diversity fantatism. 

Pochotino wouldn't take the Chelsea job for many reasons. All of them good ones.

It isn't all upside with Roman's approach to football club ownership. Look at how we were all so depressed about the future just a few weeks ago. Despite coming off a season where we won a European trophy, nearly won a domestic one too, and qualified for the champions League, there wasn't an ounce of optimism around here. Nor is it all about intangible feelings. Our average attendance is down about two percent from where it was two years ago. The other man's grass isn't always greener, but neither is ours.

Apart from seats the club has held back, every available home ticket for Chelsea Women vs Tottenham Women at Stamford Bridge on the 8th of September has been claimed. Now, to be fair, the tickets are free and when they are free, people tend to request more than they actually need. The club is aware of this of course and is encouraging people to return any tickets they can't use so they can be reallocated to people on the waiting list. The attendance is certain to be a lot more than twenty-five. If everyone with a ticket turns up the ground will be full.

I'd say the current fashion for promoting women's football is social, not political. Either way it's very important so I support it. You'll get no argument from me that, on average, male professionals are better than female ones and that this is true even if you leave physical attributes out of it. As more girls take up the sport women standards will improve. Meanwhile, the women's game is already exciting in its own right. There are bad matches, good matches, and great matches. Just like men's football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.