Notice I didn't use "only outstanding," I used "more impactful". I'm not great at English but i'm pretty sure those 2 don't imply the same thing. The current youth team is indeed better than Kakuta's youth team but it wasn't a "sea of mediocrity". Kakuta played with the likes of Jack Cork, Bridcut, Hutchinson, PVA, Borini, Bruma. Yeah they aren't world beaters now, but they were actually pretty good prospects back then; they weren't "mediocre". Some players scale up their game from youth football with all their qualities and attributes and even acquire others, some players don't. No one knew Quaresma would flop at senior level. Trying to say otherwise is claiming clairvoyance and that's bullshit. Mceachran might have been an intelligent, mature midfielder in youth football but senior football presented another dimension that he couldn't scale up to. No one knows if Musonda will scale up to all the different dimensions of senior football. Chelsea didn't know Kakuta wouldn't be up to it at senior level((whatever/not getting into) the reasons). If they did, they wouldn't have gone through all the hullabaloo of getting him. The idea is to hope that they make it and help them to do so. That's why they are "prospects", "promising prospects". They were your words trying to make it out as if Kakuta's flamboyance wasn't productive in the youth team. He couldn't scale up his game to the senior level, but it was certainly productive in youth football, much more so than Musonda's. Musonda might scale up his game at senior level and be much better(productively) than Kakuta has been at this level or not; that remains to be seen. That's been the whole point.