OhForAGreavsie

Well I thought, and said, that Douglas Costa, who was linked at the same time, looked more talented than Cuadrodo did on youtube. Something to bear in mind however is that Costa moved into a better, more confident team than the one Cuadrado joined. To me the skill set of Teixeira looks a zillion times better than JC did on the highlight vids. I promise that I'm not trying to be argumentative but I also don't agree that Willian took his game to a different level. I think he simply wasn't as bad as the other options.

Did Cuadrado look brilliant? Don't watch Serie A so I don't know. I do know that his technique did not look too impressive on YouTube. While it proves nothing, at least we know, again from youtube, that Teixeira has a better skill set than our Columbian. Need to watch him actually play to decide if the Shakhtar man uses these skills well enough to make himself a better footballer but he's got them, and that's a start.

There is so much to agree with it this post. Three things I'd like to comment on: - We definitely need the midfielder you describe. I don't know enough about Kante to have an opinion about if he can fit the bill but, if he has the qualities you describe, he is better than Essien. Ess could power past markers but not dribble past them (his close control was ordinary) and he was a less than ordinary passer. I suppose being better than Ess is enough of a recommendation for a lot of Chelsea fans though I must admit I rated ME less highly than most did. The point you make about adding mobility without losing technical quality is such an important one for our club. We have sold ourselves so short in the transfer market it's criminal. To live with elite clubs requires elite players and to be an elite player requires technique first and foremost but it also needs physical attributes. We have a history of getting players with one or the other. In other words, we have signed players who are below elite level but we have paid elite fees and wages to get them. The last thing I want to say is regarding the only part of your post I disagree with. I think it's just wishful thinking on our part to imagine that any strikers would get better service playing for Chelsea currently than they would playing for Watford or many other premier League sides. It just ain't so I'm afraid though I suppose you mean how it might be with an improved squad. We can only hope.

We need upgrades on both. If we succeed in becoming the side we'd like to be, neither of them will be starters.

Thanks Barbara. Hope you are well. I don't agree with you on this. It is true of course that we have failed to produce any first teamers through the academy for more than a decade but I do not believe this is because we're not trying. I'm convinced that we are trying hard but, for one reason or another, we are not very good at it. If any Cobham graduates had gone on to have top level careers elsewhere then maybe the claim could be made that we are ignoring young talent that deserves to be picked. The only possible example, Bertrand, is a debatable one in my opinion and, in any case, was not fully schooled at Cobham. I have been a long term defender of the academy and feel that we have only just reached the time when we can begin to judge their work. It takes a long time to set up a facility, its systems and its staff. Then it takes much, much longer to take 8 year old lads through the programme to first team age. It is still early days for Cobham. Having said that my early judgement on Cobham is must do better. I approved of the dismissal of Dermot Drummy. It was spun differently of course but he was moved sideways and rightly so. I am concerned however that we still don't have the coaching staff right. Our coaches have not, in my opinion, made RLC into the best player he can be and, equally worrying, Jeremie Boga is no better a footballer today than he was 3 years ago. In both cases the flaws in their games are things which can be coached yet the flaws remain. This is the real problem in my opinion. It's not that we are ignoring the talent, it's that we're not producing it to the required standard. The law of averages says a club isn't going to get many recruits of the right calibre in the first place so we can't afford to waste the ones we do find. Apologies for the length of this but there is one more point I'd like to make. All that an academy can honestly promise a young recruit is that they will help him become the best player he can possibly be. If that turns out to be up to the level which matches Chelsea's ambition then great, but if not then help the young man find another club and collect a transfer fee for him if appropriate. In other words, there is no distinction between what the academy needs to do to produce Chelsea players and what it must do to make a profit. In either case, just turn out the best footballers possible. The profit or player debate is therefore a non issue as far as I'm concerned. P.S. The manager does not want Patrick because, as I said when I saw him play for our development squads a few years ago, he isn't good enough. At least that's my opinion anyway.

I had a similar conversation with another member shortly after rumours of our interest in Kennedy began to surface. The other member initially saw things the way you do currently but he changed his mind when he saw more of Kennedy. You will too because Eden's technique is definitely the better of the two.

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.