Nathaniel Chalobah

[CHOULO19 24,332]

You're contradicting yourself. Our performances are not stable enough to take chances on young players but yet Mourinho started Van Ginkel in the first game at home against basel. And, let's avoid fixing up the facts. Kalas was injured for much of the first part of the season. That has to be taken into consideration. If Mourinho promised Kalas starts then most likely Kalas would have seen some game time if it weren't for the injury that set him back in fitness.

Why would that be contradicting? I'm saying that MVG is better than Essien and that's why he got more games before he was injured. Marco has had two full seasons at one of the best teams in Netherlands, he is miles ahead of Nathanial in terms of development and experience. You can't compare the two. If Jose or the club thought that Chalobah was as good as Marco, he would have stayed and played instead of going out on loan to the championship, in fact if he was that good already we wouldn't have had to buy Marco.

Luckily, Nathanial is still 19 and has all the time in the world to develop into a great player. He just needs game-time to develop which is why the club will almost certainly find him another loan in January.

And as for Kalas, he's been back from injury for almost two months and he hasn't even made the bench when recently we had no CBs there due to Luiz's injury. Jose, or any other manager in the world, simply won't risk it when the team is under pressure for results.

[The only place to be 11,313]

The lack of patience some show with young players is astounding to me. I simply don't understand these types of fans.

Essien made a massive cock-up yet the supporters in the ground didn't get on his back. They encouraged him, they cheered him and put the proverbial arm around his shoulder. Why this wouldn't be the same for young players I don't know and I know every Chelsea supporter worth their salt would love to see youngsters being brought through.

We just can't allow him the time and patience of putting up with mistakes and sub-par performances

I guarantee not a single Chelsea supporter agrees with this. All players make mistakes, and Chelsea supporters have ALWAYS supported youngsters. We have a fine tradition of young players coming through in fact.

I try my best to not engage with you Choulo but when you're so amazingly wrong, I have to interject.

[dee25 1,044]

Why would that be contradicting? I'm saying that MVG is better than Essien and that's why he got more games before he was injured. Marco has had two full seasons at one of the best teams in Netherlands, he is miles ahead of Nathanial in terms of development and experience. You can't compare the two. If Jose or the club thought that Chalobah was as good as Marco, he would have stayed and played instead of going out on loan to the championship, in fact if he was that good already we wouldn't have had to buy Marco.

Luckily, Nathanial is still 19 and has all the time in the world to develop into a great player. He just needs game-time to develop which is why the club will almost certainly find him another loan in January.

And as for Kalas, he's been back from injury for almost two months and he hasn't even made the bench when recently we had no CBs there due to Luiz's injury. Jose, or any other manager in the world, simply won't risk it when the team is under pressure for results.

lol so now suddenly Marco is being described as an experienced youth with two seasons at one of the best teams in Netherlands? I think you're revisioning things to suit your agenda because from what I've seen you certainly didn't think so highly of Van Ginkel a few months ago. In fact you claimed that McEachran was even better than him. Also I simply don't get your point about Kalas nor do I think you do either. Kalas completed two seasons in the same team Van Ginkel played for. There's really no difference between the both of them in terms of development.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

hat’s your point @TorontoChelsea? I can pull out about a dozen quotes from Zola & Billy Davies lauding praises on Nat. Begovic’s potential (which is what Pulis is speaking about) isn’t the point of argument is it? Pulis' comments doesn’t prove one way or another that Begovic had a good spell (as you seem to be claiming) at Ipswich or even at Yeovil, which I don’t think he did. When I think of successful loan spells, I think of players putting in quality and consistent enough performances that sets them apart from the rest and draws them accolades. Begovic's time at Ipswich doesn’t fall into that category for me. He made only a handful of apps and his inconsistency and constant errors/blunders was a point of frustration among supporters. Yes, he was recalled by Portsmouth due to injury but then (surprisingly) did very well for them. Townsend.....did he really impress at QPR? Besides that one screamer, I don’t remember him making much of an impression. Barkley, was excellent for sheff weds where he (as you mentioned) scored about 4 goals, what you didn't mention though is that after impressing for sheff weds he was loaned out again to Leeds where he struggled for playing time. I don't think he scored any goals at Leeds and in the two months or so he was there, made only like 4 apps.

So, for clarity sake, are you suggesting that the only clubs who take such risks on unproven players are mid-table/lower sides?

But that's exactly the general point I’m making, players can go to a championship club put in top class performances and still fail in the PL. The opposite can happen as well. In bringing in the example of Begovic, my point is that loan spells at championship clubs (or any club for that matter) can't be used as an indicator to predict whether a player will be successful or not in their parent club. The only way to determine the readiness of a player is by actually giving them opportunities in the first team.

Anyway, in the last few posts I’ve made, I think my underlying argument has been clear and that is that we should take a risk in bedding Nathaniel into the first team, particularly after his successful loan spell at Watford. Note, I’m not saying that Chalobah is already better than Mikel, Ramires et al, nor I’m I arguing that he should become a regular. I’m also not inferring that he’s the answer to our midfield problems. What I’m saying is that the kid is good enough to be given chances in the first team, particularly since centre midfield is already a weak area for us, thus we can certainly then afford to take more liberties in playing a youngster without risking a significant drop in quality.

I think the idea that you find this suggestion so absurd and the fact you’re so quick to file it under the heading of “overrating youth” is frankly absurd in itself. You’re free to call my suggestion idealistic, you can call it unrealistic and you certainly would have been justified in calling it ‘outdated’ but it's absolutely not "absurdly overrating a youth" to suggest that Nat should continue his development here. After all, two of our rivals have already given first team opportunities to less experienced youngsters than nat. Even we gave a few apps to Ake last season and to Josh a few seasons back. I see absolutely no reason why Nat can't replace someone like Essien in the squad.

Btw, this thing of "overrating youth" - you know, it's also possible to "underrate youth" as well which is just as problematic as the former.

Are you really, though? See that’s interesting because from what I remember you suggested that Lukaku isn’t better than Ba/torres and you were definitely in favour of him being loaned out again. In fact, I’m going to boldly say that in as much as you go on about youth needing to prove themselves at a top level first before they can apparently get a sniff at playing for Chelsea, I really don’t think your general stance would change all that much even if, lets say, Nathaniel had come off of a good loan spell at a lower PL side.

My point is that you original post was a all wrong. You claimed that all these players were struggling and got shots and succeeded and none of them were struggling (and all of them had more experience than Chalobah and all of them got shots for worse teams than Chelsea). Chalobah is undeniably struggling right now. He didn't struggle last year but that's not the point you were making. (Although that point is also incorrect.)

I am so sick of youth fetishism. Chalobah has never played a game at a top level. Forget about being inexperienced, he has zero experience. He can't get into a side that's not in the top few hundred sides in the world and you want him to play regularly for a top-10 side? He is out of game shape and out of form. His attitude and effort have been poor. Hell, let's give him a shot! Why? Because he's young and that in itself seems to somehow be a virtue. it isn't. . And underrating youth pretty much never happens among fans. I've basically never seen someone write off young players completely whereas I constantly see people thinking young players are about 500% better than they actually are. I see confirmation bias with young players to an insane degree (someone called Van Ginkel the best defensive player he'd ever seen in this forum. Passes that veteran players make all the time get praised if they are made by someone younger, good games are turned into excellent performances simply because the player is young, forums are filled with people drooling over 17 YOs and comparing them to current superstars even though a fraction of them will ever be any good.)

I wanted Lukaku to go because he needs more playing time and because he needs to evolve his game. We were keeping Torres and Ba and bought Eto'o and teams only ever use 2 strikers with any regularity. Demba Ba despite injuries, suspensions, and Mourinho using a surprising number of two-attacker sets has started only 3 games in all competitions and has scored 2 goals. Lukaku has played 9 games and scored 8. HLukaku maybe could have done that but he wouldn't have developed as well because he wouldn't be getting game time.Chelsea is better off with Lukaku playing regularly. . If he were at Chelsea, he would have been sitting on the bench, playing in League Cup games when we had an injury.He needs to improve his game and wouldn't do so not playing. And no, I don't like Lukaku is a very good fit for our system right now which relies on strikers to link up and be (well-rounded) which is a weak aspect of Lukaku's game. Next year, I assume we will be rid of Ba and Eto'o and I'll be happy to see him back here. If Chalobah had had a successful loan spell at a Premier League club, he would sure as hell be welcomed into the club right now but the gap between being successful in the Premier League and struggling in the Championship is enormous. And yes, players need to prove themselves at a top level before being penciled in for regular playing time on a side like Chelsea. that's just the way top teams work.

@The only place to be. People keep mentioning Pogba because he is the exception. For every Pogba, there are about a million players than don't pan out. You want to give all the young players chances, you're going to be a mid-table side at best. I am all for giving youth spots on our team. I thought the Willian signing blocking De Bruyne was wasteful, I was happy to see Van Ginkel getting some minutes, etc..but you have to use young players that are ready to make the jump. Van Ginkel was playing well in Holland which is a vastly better league than the Championship. He even got capped by a solid Holland side. Not all young players are at the same level and Chalobah is not at the stage of development yet where he is ready to play in the premier League.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Hell, let's give him a shot! Why? Because he's young and that in itself seems to somehow be a virtue. it isn't. . And underrating youth pretty much never happens among fans. I've basically never seen someone write off young players completely whereas I const

No. Because he's good.

No-one is calling for Charley Musonda to be given a chance. It's not just about us wanting any old young player to come in, otherwise the logical call would probably be Josh. The reason a lot of people want Nat to be given a chance is because he's a good player. I don't see you talking too much about what he needs to develop, just that he's at some early stage of development. Physically he's always held his own, technically he's fantastic and he also shows good positional awareness, so what exactly do you fear him doing wrong if he was actually given a shot in the team?

Pogba may have been the exception - what about Nat makes you think he isn't another exception? When I saw him play against Pogba at the Bridge, they were the two exceptional players on the pitch.

Maybe you're right - maybe young players have to prove themselves at the highest level before we can take a risk on them. But how fucking boring that world is. How unadventurous and dull. Why every fan who gives a fuck about the romance of football isn't screaming at the top of their voices for young players with exceptional talent to be given a chance I don't know.

But then I'm not sure why so many people who wander into Stamford Bridge on matchdays (apparently by accident) aren't screaming at the top of their voices.

[The Skipper 20,593]

What I find pretty mind boggling is the fact that people can't even fathom Nat taking over Essien's spot in the squad? He's obviously good enough to do so, taking away youth and the supposed experience Michael offers (look what experience did against Southampton).

[Tomo 21,681]

The lack of patience some show with young players is astounding to me.

In general i think it's the opposite, especially if the young player was an academy product.

I remember one match McEachran played under Carlo (i think it was Zilina at home but don't hold me to it) he messed up a simple pass and the fans around me applauded and were like 'unlucky lad', Malouda did the same minutes later and was called every name under the sun.

If their is one type of player fans will be patient with (in my experience) no matter what, it's players from our academy, my mate still harbored hopes for Conor Clifford to be our next midfield captain general until the moment he got released early this year.

[herpthederp 122]

Scored against Millwall tonight.

[We Hate Scouse 10,260]

Apart from the goal he had a really poor game apparently

[Bosnian Blue 2,471]

In general i think it's the opposite, especially if the young player was an academy product.

I remember one match McEachran played under Carlo (i think it was Zilina at home but don't hold me to it) he messed up a simple pass and the fans around me applauded and were like 'unlucky lad', Malouda did the same minutes later and was called every name under the sun.

If their is one type of player fans will be patient with (in my experience) no matter what, it's players from our academy, my mate still harbored hopes for Conor Clifford to be our next midfield captain general until the moment he got released early this year.

And thats the way it should always be.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Apart from the goal he had a really poor game apparently

I saw one of his games this season. I don't know if it is lack of motivation or if he's unhappy at forest or what, but his work-rate was just bad. You'll have a hard time winning over the fans if you don't work hard.

[OneMoSalah 8,611]

Scored but his loan spell so far has been pretty poor from what I've seen. Looks totally different to the player who was at Watford last year...

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

What I find pretty mind boggling is the fact that people can't even fathom Nat taking over Essien's spot in the squad? He's obviously good enough to do so, taking away youth and the supposed experience Michael offers (look what experience did against Southampton).

But why???? What benefit is there bringing back Chalobah so he can play in 5 games in the season? Is it really so important to have Chalobah on the team that you're willing to stunt his development? Even if he were ready, and he's clearly not, young players need game time. What is clear is that he needs more development time. Bringing him back to Chelsea is not good for Chelsea, it's not good for Chalobah. So why do it? So fans can get to salivate over a player's potential in League Cup games? It's pointless.

@Tomo- This is exactly it. It's not just the overrating of potential, it's the overrating of their actual play. Any game that any young, inexperienced player plays that is even half decent will get over-praised to the skies. If a veteran player had the same game, people would be talking about what players we could splash 40M pounds on to replace them.

[Reddish-Blue 2,212]

But why???? What benefit is there bringing back Chalobah so he can play in 5 games in the season? Is it really so important to have Chalobah on the team that you're willing to stunt his development? Even if he were ready, and he's clearly not, young players need game time. What is clear is that he needs more development time. Bringing him back to Chelsea is not good for Chelsea, it's not good for Chalobah. So why do it? So fans can get to salivate over a player's potential in League Cup games? It's pointless.

@Tomo- This is exactly it. It's not just the overrating of potential, it's the overrating of their actual play. Any game that any young, inexperienced player plays that is even half decent will get over-praised to the skies. If a veteran player had the same game, people would be talking about what players we could splash 40M pounds on to replace them.

Over-praised? Thats because fans are generally delighted to see a youngster get his first taste of top-level football

As for the veteran player, he is expected to set the standard by putting in a solid performance.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Over-praised? Thats because fans are generally delighted to see a youngster get his first taste of top-level football

As for the veteran player, he is expected to set the standard by putting in a solid performance.

It doesn't matter one bit. A performance is a performance. We're not a support system to give confidence to young people. The object of our club is not to to develop young talent. We're trying to win trophies. Players should be praised based on what they do, not on how old they are or how long they've been with Chelsea. I'm not talking about fans booing a young player when they make a mistake (I don't believe supporters should boo their own players almost no matter what), we should always be supportive of our players and it is nice to see a young player play well but I'm talking about what Tomo was talking about. The absurd overrating of performances by young players and underrating the performances by veterans.

[The only place to be 11,313]

It doesn't matter one bit. A performance is a performance. We're not a support system to give confidence to young people.

Um, actually that's exactly what football supporters are. They feed off our energy and that spurs them on.

The object of our club is not to to develop young talent.

It's one of the objectives.

Anyway, you've said that Nat isn't ready or developed enough but you avoid specifics. I'm not sure why this is. Having watched him play many, many times he has that one thing that top quality players of any age always have - time on the ball. He's athletic, he's a great passer, he's disciplined and he gets the odd goal. What's missing?

[Special Juan 27,093]

What's missing?

We didn't pay 30M for him

[remains of the day 564]

My point is that you original post was a all wrong

So you’ve mentioned this word – ‘wrong’ a couple of times now. Everything I said is wrong, my examples are wrong, my descriptions were wrong, everything is wrong. Yet the only evidence you can give me as to why these things are supposedly “wrong”…. is one Tony Pulis quote where he only praised the potential of a young Begovic.

You then go on to say how Barkley didn’t struggle because according to you he scored 4 goals in 12 appearances (it was 13). You gave absolutely no details and didn't specify that when Barkley scored 4 goals, he was actually at Sheffield Wednesday and he was there longer than the one-month spell you claimed. After a good spell at sheff wed, he was then sent to a bigger challenge at Leeds; this was for an initial one-month loan spell that was going to be extended if he managed to impress. He didn’t impress, he managed 3 starts and 1 sub appearance. He couldn’t get into that Leeds side and he was sent back to Everton. But according to you, he didn’t ‘struggle’ and I'm just subscribing to confirmatory bias. Got it.

You then make the bizarre point that "and all of them had more experience than Chalobah" – so now not only did Begovic & Barkley not struggle in their last loan spells (which they did) but (according to you) they were a lot more experienced than Chalobah was before they got a shot at their parent clubs? Keep in mind that Barkley & Begovic made a combined total of 10 apps in their last loan spell before they returned to their parent club and keep in mind that Nathaniel had a more successful loan spell in the championship last season than Barkley did. Yet, somehow, Barkley was more experienced than Nat when he returned to Everton? Got it.

Your point that these are only a handful of examples and ones that are only relevant to mid-table sides is actually an excellent point and one of the few points you raised with some merit. Although there are many more examples across Europe of young players who didn’t exactly set the world alight during their loan spells only to go on to impress either at their parent club or when they were eventually sold to another club. For ‘fear’ of being called ‘wrong’ again and being accused of displaying confirmation bias, it’s best I just keep those examples to myself.

I'm sticking to my main point that loans can't be used to predict whether a youngster will be successful when he returns to his parent club. You haven't provided anything to show the contrary. If your point is that these players didn't immediately succeed when they returned, fair enough....although I never once said they were able to instantly do well upon returning nor am I expecting Nat to come back in Jan and suddenly start putting in top class performances. From what I've seen of Nat at Forest, he just looks like he can't be arsed. I work with young athletes and I'm convinced that him coming back in Jan, and making a few appearances in the first team will go a long way towards preparing him for next season than risking another championship loan move that may or may not work out.

Your point that Nat "can't get into a side that's not in the top few hundred sides in the world" so how can I then expect him to "play regularly for a top-10 side" - I think that's myopism. You're looking at his performances this season in isolation. He's the same player that not only got into a “top few hundred side in the world” as you call it, last season but played an important role for that side. If we're going draw meaning into Nat's performances in the championship, why then focus & read more into his poor performances so far at forest than his good performances with Watford. Isn't that confirmation bias?

Regarding this notion that “passes that veteran players make all the time get praised if they are made by someone younger” - so your response to that is to basically lean to the other extreme to the point that we give very little recognition of youngster’s talent? Why is being overly optimistic about youth any worse than being overly pessimistic? And don’t think for a second that somehow your view on this matter is representative of a balanced, biased- free perspective. It is not. You have a problem with people lavishing praises onto youngsters yet you yourself don’t see any problem with being blatantly over-critical of youth. Yet you have temerity to call confirmation bias. Please, don’t make me laugh. You only see confirmatory bias when it suits your own skewed & blinkered view of things, which becomes a confirmation bias in itself.

I think most rational people will agree that yes, far too often, people tend to blow everything that youngsters do way out of proportion. But so what? That's football culture. We had to listen to non-stop media love fest over a Utd teenager because he scored two goals in one game, something that many players do all the time. But does that then mean that we should now refrain from praising youth when they exhibit talented performances that exceeds that of their peers? Just because some, over glorify youngsters, we shouldn’t then recognize their talent or potential and encourage them even when their performances has been subpar?

As for your comment that ‘underrating youth never happens among fans” – to use the term you so generously throw around - that’s wrong. Many, such as yourself, somehow think it's your duty to "right the wrongs" and banish the evils of what you call youth fetishism; So if someone hypes up a youth - you over criticize the youth, if someone praises a pass a youth made, you then bring up how 10 passes weren't perfectly executed; what you end up accomplishing is not objectivism of any sense but hypersensitive critic. See Choulo's comment below regarding Marco, after two preseason games.

Van Ginkel's passing has been terrible in both games. Fist he's very slow at it and often needs an extra touch or two before releasing the ball. Second, his technique is awful, meaning even when he does make the pass it is often either behind the player or difficult for him to control; meaning the receiver often has to take an extra touch which also slows down the play. Moreover, his vision is bad; he seems only to be able to make the 'obvious' pass and when a defender blocks that angle he looks unsure what to do and often goes back to defense. And finally, he seems to struggle with passes more than 15-20 meters away and often misplaces them.

@Choulo19 really don’t mean to single you out! To be fair to Choulo he did warm up to Van Ginkel afterwards.

But my point is, just because some tend to glorify youth and be too eager to want them to play in the first team, doesn't legitimize being overly critical of youth talent and being overly pessimistic and dismissive about their chances of playing for a top club and you, @TorontoChelsea, seem to be prescribing to that notion.

"And yes, players need to prove themselves at a top level before being penciled in for regular playing time on a side like Chelsea. that's just the way top teams work" - except top teams in PL have already given apps to less experienced and proven youngsters than Nathaniel? Yes, yes...I know."I'm wrong", right?