OhForAGreavsie

I never play either. Do you know if I'm ready? Managers and coaches have to form an opinion about players from the evidence they see and they see much more evidence than we do. None of our coaches have picked RLC very often so it's clear that, collectively, they don't believe Ruben is ready. Why would they pick him if they don't think he's set? Many in this thread, and elsewhere, announce that Ruben can't be worse than the players he might replace in the line up but they do so without any evidence at all. Those with the evidence and the decision making power say no, those without either say those others don't know what they're talking about. Football.

I doubt they would agree that they have been making it clear that profit is the purpose of the academy. Rather I think they'd claim that the aim remains to develop Chelsea players but that ensuring it realises a turnover from player sales helps the club to continue funding it as lavishly as it does.

As I said, he was born with the talent, sharpened his skills as he progressed through the Barcelona development squads, convinced the coaches he was ready to be tried at top level and then, crucially, did enough to earn more minutes and eventually become first choice. There were other kids in the same development squads as Messi who we've never heard of and who are now doing ordinary jobs. You have to have the talent and you have to show that you've learned to apply it. Fall in either area and you fall by the wayside. Then why are there any good players? Why don't all just develop more and become great? In my opinion, the belief that sows ears can become silk purses is the biggest myth in football. A player's potential is directly linked to his talent and the greater the talent, the higher he might fly. Perhaps I'm misreading what you say but you seem to be suggesting that the progression is automatic. Just give 'em minutes and they'll become good enough. You can't be suggesting that however because I know you know it ain't true. Young players on the cusp of a breakthrough do need a few chances to settle in and to begin to show what they can do but, in the end, they are not good enough because they play, they play because they're good enough. Pogba was very promising at United. He was being widely talked about as a very talented kid. Fergusson didn't doubt his talent; he doubted the young man's application. As I said, kids get into development programmes because they show they have the tools but there is more to do to progress into the first team. A lot of United fans were furious when Pogba was allowed to leave but SAF made his call and he'd earned the right to do it. I can't speak about RLC's attitude although Jose did hint that there were issues there. On the other hand, I've been saying for nearly three years that Ruben needed to be more active, especially when we're in possession so I agree with your assessment about his work rate.

So if you work hard on the training ground you'll become as good Lionel Messi? Let me take you out of it since and I don't know anything about you and maybe you would turn out to be brilliant. I can assure you however that even if I spent 24 hours a day honing my skills, I wouldn't even reach your level, never mind Leo's. I'm convinced that great footballer's are indeed born. Born with the tools that is. Then it's a matter of developing them so they learn how to use those tools and then testing them to see if they have the x-factor which allows them to apply those skills effectively under the challenge of high level competition. They don't get in to the development programme unless someone believes that they were born with enough of the right tools, and they won't graduate to the testing stage unless they persuade the decision maker that they have learned their lessons well enough. It's easy for someone like me, who watches a fair bit of development football, to cross my fingers and hope but decision makers never think like that. The youngster has to give the boss something to believe in before he'll get the chance to prove himself. I, and others, can be as unhappy as we like about it but the fact is that younger members of our squad, baring Kurt, have either not done that yet or else have not made enough of the chances they've had.

Kennedy has power, pace and a tremendous attitude. These are valuable attributes but his touch and close control on the dribble are both far less good than Eden's. I'm puzzled how it is possible to think differently.

Does that mean that I might be good enough too because I never had a chance? Or does it mean that clubs should not exercise any judgement at all in the transfer market and, instead, just sign as many players as possible in case one or two turn out useful? The ideas behind these questions are obviously ridiculous and none of us would take them seriously. The reason for that of course is that we all make judgements on players all the time; players who are playing for some team other than the Chelsea 1st XI that is. Sometimes those judgements are right and sometimes they are wrong but, right or wrong, it's perfectly legitimate for people to feel able to form opinions on players without having seen them play for our senior side.

There is no point in focusing on Patrick. He does not, in my opinion, have the quality we need.

I'm afraid you are both right. When Nemanja left for Benifica I was neither surprised nor disappointed but when he returned I was seduced by those four months into believing, along with many, that he was actually a really good player. For more than a year however he has been demonstrating that he isn't and that those of us who bought the idea that he was the genuine article were simply wrong.

I think you make a fair point although I don't believe Hughes is the answer. To me he looks barely good enough for the level he plays at currently.

I understand your point but I only agree to a certain extent. I think there are certain attributes which can be divined if the videos are watched critically. The Douglas Costa case is one of countless examples where I believe an opinion formed from youtube has proved accurate. Certain things do not transmit however. I feel that I correctly noted the limitations of Kennedy's touch from watching those highlights but I did not learn about the fire in his belly until I saw him play for real. I think most players can be dismissed as real Chelsea prospects from watching YouTube but sometimes those highlights do reveal traits which you think gives him a chance and which makes you want to see full game coverage of the player. That is how I would use the clips; not to decide but to narrow down the list of targets I wanted to scout.

Douglas Costa's YouTube highlights showed him to be a far more technically gifted player than Juan Cuadrado who we nevertheless went for instead. Granted, technically better footballer does not necessarily equal better player full stop but, in my opinion, technique has been a sadly undervalued attribute in the eyes of our recruiters. We've always preferred a Diego Costa over a Sergio Aguero, a Torres over a Suarez. When all is said and done, the best sides in the world are stuffed with superb technicians. That is why they are better than the rest, not because they run more or are bigger or stronger. Lot's of other qualities are important too but, to be the best takes technique, technique, technique. We need more of it and the sooner the better.

If there is one thing the club could have done to appease me over the loss of Jose, it was the appointment of Guus. Very happy about it.

My translation of what he said is that he's going to assess his squad, including the youngsters, and that the kids will first have to prove to him that they have the qualities before they will get any minutes. Nothing more than the blindingly obvious truth really but it was good to hear him say it all the same. He resisted the myth pushing thrust of the question which attempted to get him to offer an implied criticism of our policy towards kids.

If I am recalling it correctly he said, "and hopefully a little bit longer than that [meaning beyond the last day of the league season]". In context I think he was just saying that he hopes we do well and still have football to play, i.e. a final, once the league is over. I'm pretty confident that is what he was saying.

Nope. Let's get a decent ref against Barca this time around.

Agreed I like Pedro. We are not a side that is built for his style of play but, in the right environment, can be a big contributor. There was a lot of good stuff from him in possession yesterday. He and Fabregas produced some pleasing tiki-taka combinations that pulled Sunderland apart.

The board did give Jose more time than it would have given to anyone else in these circumstances, that is true. We do not know however that the boss was allowed to do whatever he wanted. That is just speculation.

A sad Chelsea day. He'll always be loved by the vast majority of Chelsea fans.

True enough. Maybe bullet dodged but definitely ship sailed.

Any more? Was he ever really a top player?

That's been the case when I've watched Jed play at CF for Rennes. They are not to dissimilar to us in that they don't move the ball very well through midfield and into attack. Anyone would struggle for touches at the head of that team and Jed definitely does. I don't think a new loan is necessarily the answer for him however. The things that were problems in Jed's game 3 years ago are still problems for him. This is what is preventing him cementing a place in the starting line up. It's no good these lads reading TalkChelsea and believing people who tell them that they should be starting. No matter how many times people post the opinion that the only reason some of our kids are not starting is because Jose hates them and is deliberately trying to destroy Chelsea, it still will not be true. When our loanees find that other managers, who presumably do not hate kids, are not picking them either, then they might realise that the truth resides in other posts.

For me it was a typical Oscar performance. One which underscored the two great truths about Oscar and Chelsea. Namely that he is not good enough to be Chelsea's number ten but that he is, nevertheless, the best number ten we have in the squad currently. It's just opinion of course but, for me, we always look more dangerous when Oscar plays so his all too obvious shortcomings only serve to reinforce how badly we need upgrades in this area. A player with the right attributes in that position improves this team enormously.

Bad research - deleted.

Hello Skipper, Hope you are well. To be fair you deserved some criticism for that assessment. Oscar did not stagnate, he maintained his trajectory. That is to say he was never good enough and was never going to be. When I said so almost three years ago I was offered the usual excuse; he's young, and an unusual one; he's tired. I could not accept either. If a player isn't talented enough then simply getting older is never going to cure that and the tiredness claim has been well and truly exposed for the myth it always was. The big change concerning Oscar is nothing to do with him. It is that people are no longer ready to accept the excuses and are now judging him on what he does rather than on what they hope he'll do in the future. The player himself is the same as he ever was. If you'll forgive a further, slightly critical observation; people often complain that a player hasn't developed because it allows then to blame him for the shortcomings rather than themselves for having overestimated him in the first place.

Deleted: Replied to the wrong post. Reposted below.