Patrick Bamford

[blues.bridge 340]

27 minutes ago, Tomo said:

So If we sent a 21 year old Sturridge to Palace would he have been benched because Palace don't own him?

Palace strikers scored one goal (from a penalty) between them all season and Bamford didn't get a look in, that speaks volumes.

Eventually instead ofbashing the club we have to accept players aren't good for enough, before anyone quotes me saying how do you know if they won't get a chance? If that's how you think then how about we start Marco Amelia on Sunday against Arsenal?

i wanted to say just that if a team had to decide if give a change at own players, or at players on loan, them prefer always give it at own!

[OhForAGreavsie 5,776]

14 hours ago, Jason said:

Sometimes, all a player need is the chance to prove himself (or herself). You only have to look at Harry Kane as an example. Didn't shine during his time out on loan and early in his Spurs career. But when he was given the chance to show what he can do around end of 2014, he took it and has never looked back since.

Hello Jay,

Honest question; which other players spring to mind who are examples of this? I can't name any off the top of my head but then I'm not trying too hard since I take the opposite view to yours on this issue.

My take is that Kane got chances to play at Spurs because he earned them. Eventually he took one of those chances and showed that he could contribute. He was able to do both of those things because he is good enough but how many of our lads have shown that they are good enough to earn, and then to take, their opportunity too? On the face of it the answer is none since, none of them have made significant progrees under any of our managers. I can guess that your explanation for this is very different to the one I'd give.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,776]

17 minutes ago, blues.bridge said:

i wanted to say just that if a team had to decide if give a change at own players, or at players on loan, them prefer always give it at own!

It only becomes an issue if the player on loan is not the better option for the team. When he is the better option, he gets selected. In fact clubs who find that a player on loan is good for them often then try to sign him on a permanent basis. Footballers who fail to get selected while on loan fail for the same reason they fail at their parent clubs; they have not convinced the manager that the are good enough. No more complicated explanation is necessary.

P.S. I edited this post in an effort to make my point more clearly. I think @blues.bridge liked the post before that edit. It may be that in the updated form, he'd want to take it back. Apologies to b.b if that's so.

[Tomo 21,681]

37 minutes ago, Muzchap said:

ridiculoThis!!! How many non-Kane stories are there? Very few. 

This season Kane has struggled a bit more - injuries etc. in my mind he still needs to do this over a few more seasons

but sad to say, is a decent manager and has a pretty good young squad full of energy and running - it makes our team look really ridiculous

 

 

28 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Or me.

Hopefully if/when an academy player comes through to be a full time first team player, all this pining for players clearly not good enough (Bamford, Kalas and before them PVA, Clifford etc) will ease up a bit.

[Tomo 21,681]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

But Bamford could turn out to be a success like Kane, couldn't he? You can't turn around and say Bamford is 100% failure and that's why we shouldn't give him opportunities to show what he can do, especially when he has generally done well during his loans.

To be honest, I'm not even sure why some people are so averse to seeing Bamford getting chances in the first team. He's in our books and it's not like we have to go out and buy him from elsewhere.

Usually you can tell if a player has a chance of succeeding and if we can't the coaching staff can, like I alluded to in an earlier post if we are going down the route off we will only know if we play them then we might as well play Amelia for a few games, after all Courtois and Begovic have hardly been stocking up on clean sheets.

If we brought Bamford now there would probably be ameltdown over our lack of ambition for signing a player whos only proves themself in the Championship, just like when Hector was signed.

[Tomo 21,681]

24 minutes ago, Jason said:

But Bamford could turn out to be a success like Kane, couldn't he? You can't turn around and say Bamford is 100% failure and that's why we shouldn't give him opportunities to show what he can do, especially when he has generally done well during his loans.

To be honest, I'm not even sure why some people are so averse to seeing Bamford getting chances in the first team. He's in our books and it's not like we have to go out and buy him from elsewhere.

Double post, sorry if anyone's liked it.

[Tomo 21,681]

21 minutes ago, blues.bridge said:

i wanted to say just that if a team had to decide if give a change at own players, or at players on loan, them prefer always give it at own!

Then why have Ake and Andreas nailed down first the places against tough competition from players owned by the club.

[blues.bridge 340]

5 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Allora perché hanno Ake e Andreas inchiodato prima i posti contro la forte concorrenza da parte dei giocatori di proprietà del club.

i said that happen sometimes, not always
if now we wanted analyze every case, so would stay here very very time
 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,776]

28 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Usually you can tell if a player has a chance of succeeding and if we can't the coaching staff can, like I alluded to in an earlier post if we are going down the route off we will only know if we play them then we might as well play Amelia for a few games, after all Courtois and Begovic have hardly been stocking up on clean sheets.

If we brought Bamford now there would probably be ameltdown over our lack of ambition for signing a player whos only proves themself in the Championship, just like when Hector was signed.

The post I'm replying to should be pinned so that it appears at the top of every page in this topic.

I have nothing against Patrick and I bet Tomo hasn't either but it is discouraging that things went wrong for him at the level which is closest to the one he wants to reach.

As far as can be told from his interviews, on pitch demeanour, and reported comments, Patrick is a really good bloke who deserves much success at Chelsea. I do want to acknowledge something however. Having seen Patrick play in development games a few years back I wrote him off as not good enough for Chelsea level. Since then he has been doing better at each loan club, except Palace, than I really expected him to. I'm sure Patrick will keep fighting for a top level career and it must be said that his first goal vs QPR's 21s the other day was a magnificent strike. Very, very high class indeed. He knows, everyone reading this knows and I know, that there is more to making it than being capable of a finish like that but it can't do any harm.

Although I remain a non-believer I wish Patrick well.

[Jase 43,479]

5 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

My take is that Kane got chances to play at Spurs because he earned them. Eventually he took one of those chances and showed that he could contribute. He was able to do both of those things because he is good enough but how many of our lads have shown that they are good enough to earn, and then to take, their opportunity too? On the face of it the answer is none since, none of them have made significant progrees under any of our managers. I can guess that your explanation for this is very different to the one I'd give.

Yes, Kane did earn the chance to show he is good enough but let's not forget at the start of last season, Pochettino was extremely reluctant to use him for whatever reason when Adebayor and Soldado were flopping big time for Spurs. It was only when things got desperate for them at Villa that he brought Kane on and he changed the game for them. Everything else that has happened since is history. If we are just going to judge youth players on face value without wanting to put in the commitment, trust and faith in them, then we might as well don't play them at all and close the academy (which we probably should since we are not doing any productive thing with them).

4 hours ago, Tomo said:

Usually you can tell if a player has a chance of succeeding and if we can't the coaching staff can, like I alluded to in an earlier post if we are going down the route off we will only know if we play them then we might as well play Amelia for a few games, after all Courtois and Begovic have hardly been stocking up on clean sheets.

If we brought Bamford now there would probably be ameltdown over our lack of ambition for signing a player whos only proves themself in the Championship, just like when Hector was signed.

But compare to some, Bamford has done well on his loans (with the exception of Palace). Even you can't deny that. And if doing well on loans doesn't earn a player some opportunities at the very least to show what he can do in the first team, then what must they do to get a chance?

[The Mak 4,459]

16 hours ago, Reddish-Blue said:

Injured Pato > Bamford

You must have some sort of crystal ball, because I am only working off the fact that:

1. One of the players, who will cost us considerably more money, is a washed-up wonderkid who is doing his best (injured) Freddy Adu impersonation and... 
2. The other is a young man with, not only his entire footballing career ahead of him, but has passed every test up until this season. That's even if this season counts as a test, personally, I believe that as soon as Conor Wickham was bought the week after Bamford arrived he was doomed to fail. Why would Palace in their right minds give Bamford time over their new costly signing? They wouldn't. Patrick was 100% correct with his first instinctual words about Palace before he decided apologise.

I don't know why Chelsea fans are hypocritical; so quick to write off our youth yet cry for youth to be put in the team?! Maybe it's just one youth player at a time we can build up? McEachren, Chalobah and now Loftus-Cheek? God forbid putting faith in our entire youth set-up or that more than one youth player makes the bill. God forbid to actually TRY and find our own Shaw, Stones, Ali, Sterling, Barkley etc. instead of just crying about not having one.

Maybe people should save their criticism until, at the very least, after Bamford even makes puts on a Chelsea shirt in a competitive match? Jesus.

 

And by the way, for those who are saying 'he isn't good enough for Chelsea standards', in case you haven't noticed, our current standard is 'relegation candidates'. If some youth is not bled in now, it never will. And Bamford is better than nothing, i.e. having no fit back-up striker between BOTH Remy and Flopcao. 

[Stats 6,982]

4 hours ago, Tomo said:

Then why have Ake and Andreas nailed down first the places against tough competition from players owned by the club.

The only objection I would say to that is Palace spent a lot of money on Wickham so Pardew would almost feel obliged to play him. Whereas Gladbach had injuries and not a lot of depth at CB, it was not a problem for the manager to give him a go. Watford, Ake replaced Holebas who was bought for peanuts so yet again it was not really a costly decision for the manager to bring in Ake however like I pointed out at the time as soon as I saw Wickham was brought in for that amount of money I knew it was going to be difficult for Bamford to get a fair chance because they invested a lot of money in Wickham.

However, that is not to discredit Christensen or Ake who have done tremendously well to win their places in the starting 11 in 2 brilliant leagues.

[Muzchap 8,966]

9 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Could you please give a health warning on any posts that have nice things to say about that lot. It takes me days to recover from reading stuff like this.

Sorry mate

it it pains me to say it, as half my extended family are Spuds  

the old man is Millwall and he said Kane would be a great player, as he spent some time on loan there. Can't believe the old man was right

 

[Tomo 21,681]

8 hours ago, Jason said:

Yes, Kane did earn the chance to show he is good enough but let's not forget at the start of last season, Pochettino was extremely reluctant to use him for whatever reason when Adebayor and Soldado were flopping big time for Spurs. It was only when things got desperate for them at Villa that he brought Kane on and he changed the game for them. Everything else that has happened since is history. If we are just going to judge youth players on face value without wanting to put in the commitment, trust and faith in them, then we might as well don't play them at all and close the academy (which we probably should since we are not doing any productive thing with them).

But compare to some, Bamford has done well on his loans (with the exception of Palace). Even you can't deny that. And if doing well on loans doesn't earn a player some opportunities at the very least to show what he can do in the first team, then what must they do to get a chance?

He did do well, at a lower level, just like Michael Hector, whos signing caused this forum to combust almost.

8 hours ago, The Mak said:

You must have some sort of crystal ball, because I am only working off the fact that:

1. One of the players, who will cost us considerably more money, is a washed-up wonderkid who is doing his best (injured) Freddy Adu impersonation and... 
2. The other is a young man with, not only his entire footballing career ahead of him, but has passed every test up until this season. That's even if this season counts as a test, personally, I believe that as soon as Conor Wickham was bought the week after Bamford arrived he was doomed to fail. Why would Palace in their right minds give Bamford time over their new costly signing? They wouldn't. Patrick was 100% correct with his first instinctual words about Palace before he decided apologise.

I don't know why Chelsea fans are hypocritical; so quick to write off our youth yet cry for youth to be put in the team?! Maybe it's just one youth player at a time we can build up? McEachren, Chalobah and now Loftus-Cheek? God forbid putting faith in our entire youth set-up or that more than one youth player makes the bill. God forbid to actually TRY and find our own Shaw, Stones, Ali, Sterling, Barkley etc. instead of just crying about not having one.

Maybe people should save their criticism until, at the very least, after Bamford even makes puts on a Chelsea shirt in a competitive match? Jesus.

 

And by the way, for those who are saying 'he isn't good enough for Chelsea standards', in case you haven't noticed, our current standard is 'relegation candidates'. If some youth is not bled in now, it never will. And Bamford is better than nothing, i.e. having no fit back-up striker between BOTH Remy and Flopcao. 

If Bamford was plying better or training better he would play, you mention the price tag but didn't Jose play a 33 year old free agent over a 50m signing? Pardrews also got form for ballsy decision maling ask Tevez and Masherano.

I'm all for giving youth a shot, but playing Bamford would be like United playing Nick Powell, complete waste of time for both parties, in fact Bamford isn't even youth anymore, he's 23.

The key question is, honestly,if instead of being on loan Bamford signed for MK then Derby then Boro then got a transfer to the top flight failed to break in and we were looking to buy him, can you imagine the reaction on here? Would be complete madness yet because he's on our books he's a potential saviour.

[Spike 12,049]

Just going to say this: Crystal Palace have more important things to worry about than Bamford's development or playing time.

[Muzchap 8,966]

9 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

The post I'm replying to should be pinned so that it appears at the top of every page in this topic.

I have nothing against Patrick and I bet Tomo hasn't either but it is discouraging that things went wrong for him at the level which is closest to the one he wants to reach.

As far as can be told from his interviews, on pitch demeanour, and reported comments, Patrick is a really good bloke who deserves much success at Chelsea. I do want to acknowledge something however. Having seen Patrick play in development games a few years back I wrote him off as not good enough for Chelsea level. Since then he has been doing better at each loan club, except Palace, than I really expected him to. I'm sure Patrick will keep fighting for a top level career and it must be said that his first goal vs QPR's 21s the other day was a magnificent strike. Very, very high class indeed. He knows, everyone reading this knows and I know, that there is more to making it than being capable of a finish like that but it can't do any harm.

Although I remain a non-believer I wish Patrick well.

He could get lucky, nobody had heard of Vardy until this season  

he reminds me a bit of that Icelandic wonder kid that never lived up to the hype - Jesus, my old memory is failing me - I can see his face clear as a picture.... Forsell, that's him Mikael Forsell... 

Pas old Jimmy used to say, football it's a funny old game - and Patrick could be a late bloomer - it would be great to see an Acadamy product being our number 9 - but sadly that's where often fantasies and reality divulge and go their separate ways. 

I wouldn't say I'm a non believer, more of a yet to be convinced - which is just semantics really  

Palace was a bad move, but sometimes a bad loan can do more than a good loan, he now knows it isn't going to be easy and this is a true test of his character and self belief. I wish him well

[Reddish-Blue 2,225]

8 hours ago, The Mak said:

You must have some sort of crystal ball, because I am only working off the fact that:

1. One of the players, who will cost us considerably more money, is a washed-up wonderkid who is doing his best (injured) Freddy Adu impersonation and... 
2. The other is a young man with, not only his entire footballing career ahead of him, but has passed every test up until this season. That's even if this season counts as a test, personally, I believe that as soon as Conor Wickham was bought the week after Bamford arrived he was doomed to fail. Why would Palace in their right minds give Bamford time over their new costly signing? They wouldn't. Patrick was 100% correct with his first instinctual words about Palace before he decided apologise.

I don't know why Chelsea fans are hypocritical; so quick to write off our youth yet cry for youth to be put in the team?! Maybe it's just one youth player at a time we can build up? McEachren, Chalobah and now Loftus-Cheek? God forbid putting faith in our entire youth set-up or that more than one youth player makes the bill. God forbid to actually TRY and find our own Shaw, Stones, Ali, Sterling, Barkley etc. instead of just crying about not having one.

Maybe people should save their criticism until, at the very least, after Bamford even makes puts on a Chelsea shirt in a competitive match? Jesus.

 

And by the way, for those who are saying 'he isn't good enough for Chelsea standards', in case you haven't noticed, our current standard is 'relegation candidates'. If some youth is not bled in now, it never will. And Bamford is better than nothing, i.e. having no fit back-up striker between BOTH Remy and Flopcao. 

Bamford is no where near Shaw, Stones, Alli, Sterling or Barkley in terms of quality. (you may need to take off the blue-tinted glasses)

I don't need a crystal ball to say that Bamford should be sold to a Championship club, where he can thrive.    

[Spike 12,049]

15 minutes ago, Reddish-Blue said:

Bamford is no where near Shaw, Stones, Alli, Sterling or Barkley in terms of quality. (you may need to take off the blue-tinted glasses)

I don't need a crystal ball to say that Bamford should be sold to a Championship club, where he can thrive.    

Arguments aren't very convincing when you are just stating your opinion on something as intangible as 'quality'. Who defines quality? You? What is quality? Besides you are comparing a player trying to break through to players already established as starters. Shouldn't Bamford be juxtaposed to players in a similar position to him?