Is Chalobah ready for the first-team?

[bushman 2,043]

The potential is there, I agree. However, many other players had potential before but it did not come true for some unexplained reasons. I believe, he should be left to play where he is now & Chelsea should keep an eye on him. Once he gets some experience to play in PL, perhaps then he might get a chance.

[lucio 5,418]

paul pogba was given a chance to play in the pl at a similar age and he was a boss. he only played 3 games but he was great. the championship is more physical than the pl so chalobah is certainly strong enough. in terms of ability he is probably better than the average pl midfielder.

[bushman 2,043]

I am not sure whether it´s worth to compare Jeffrey Bruma here but I remembered Bruma was another potential Chelsea player to make big splash at Stamford Bridge.

Now, I read Hamburg does not want him anymore. On loan since 2011 & he did not make it there either.

[Styles 9,790]

I just can't see him or any other young player getting good minutes. We don't want one of our most promising young players to be sat on the bench for a year so he should stay out on loan for another season. If Watford are promoted he should extend his loan there and if they aren't he should get a Premier League loan.

[The only place to be 11,313]

I just can't see him or any other young player getting good minutes. We don't want one of our most promising young players to be sat on the bench for a year so he should stay out on loan for another season. If Watford are promoted he should extend his loan there and if they aren't he should get a Premier League loan.

It's interesting to note that Mourinho used Mikel quite a lot in his first season at the club, and Chalobah is further along in his development than Mikel was at roughly the same age and had no experience in English football.

[Styles 9,790]

It's interesting to note that Mourinho used Mikel quite a lot in his first season at the club, and Chalobah is further along in his development than Mikel was at roughly the same age and had no experience in English football.

I hate the Mikel revisionism that's going on. He was a very good young player and your hero Mourinho described him as 'pure gold'. Mikel was putting in big performances in the Champions League at 19 (Valencia away, crucial knock-out game, he came on and bossed the game). Now Chalobah might be good, very good even, but Mikel then was a better player.

[The only place to be 11,313]

I hate the Mikel revisionism that's going on. He was a very good young player and your hero Mourinho described him as 'pure gold'. Mikel was putting in big performances in the Champions League at 19 (Valencia away, crucial knock-out game, he came on and bossed the game). Now Chalobah might be good, very good even, but Mikel then was a better player.

Mourinho is my hero? Ok....

And this isn't revisionism. He was technically a very good player and had great physical gifts (remind you of anyone) but where he was miles behind Chalobah is in his mental approach to the game. Mourinho described him as 'pure gold' - he also fined him on a number of occasions because of his approach to training (coming close to letting him go if you believed the rumours) and dropped him early on in the season.

But if you actually want to talk about their relative merits as players then I'm happy to - it would be one of the few posts that discusses Chalobah's attributes in this thread.

Technically, I'd probably put them on a level footing. Mikel's passing in the final third showed more ambition than Chalobah's but that's to be expected when you look at how they'd been used. Chalobah comes from a defensive position whereas Mikel was much more of a box-to-box midfielder, maybe even considered a conventional attacking midfielder.

In terms of reading and understanding the game, there's no contest. Chalobah is streets ahead in terms of anticipating the opposition movement of the ball as well as his own players'. He's much more patient than Mikel was at that age. In terms of the intangibles, Chalobah is about as good as you could want which is why he's been marked out as a future captain at both club and international level. Mikel is approaching 300 games and there's no serious discussion about him being handed the armband which is odd because he plays in one of the most responsibility-laden positions on the pitch.

I believe character matters. I may be in the minority but I think you need leaders in the team and I don't see that in Mikel.

Physically, Mikel was a freak. He still is in some regards whereas Chalobah can look a little skinny. The interesting thing is that hasn't shown itself to be a factor in his time at Watford, indeed he's looked dominant in a league that can prioritise physicality over technique. Still to this day, Mikel uses his strength to shield the ball if he gets caught in possession (something that even Steaua can do apparently), although that's not to say it's all he does. Chalobah doesn't do that quite so much preferring to move the ball no before that happens.

Now if you think I'm revising history when talking about Mikel, that's fair enough. Physically he was top class. Technically he was great. Mentally, not what you'd want. Chalobah excels in these three categories.

[Styles 9,790]

Mourinho is my hero? Ok....

And this isn't revisionism. He was technically a very good player and had great physical gifts (remind you of anyone) but where he was miles behind Chalobah is in his mental approach to the game. Mourinho described him as 'pure gold' - he also fined him on a number of occasions because of his approach to training (coming close to letting him go if you believed the rumours) and dropped him early on in the season.

But if you actually want to talk about their relative merits as players then I'm happy to - it would be one of the few posts that discusses Chalobah's attributes in this thread.

Technically, I'd probably put them on a level footing. Mikel's passing in the final third showed more ambition than Chalobah's but that's to be expected when you look at how they'd been used. Chalobah comes from a defensive position whereas Mikel was much more of a box-to-box midfielder, maybe even considered a conventional attacking midfielder.

In terms of reading and understanding the game, there's no contest. Chalobah is streets ahead in terms of anticipating the opposition movement of the ball as well as his own players'. He's much more patient than Mikel was at that age. In terms of the intangibles, Chalobah is about as good as you could want which is why he's been marked out as a future captain at both club and international level. Mikel is approaching 300 games and there's no serious discussion about him being handed the armband which is odd because he plays in one of the most responsibility-laden positions on the pitch.

I believe character matters. I may be in the minority but I think you need leaders in the team and I don't see that in Mikel.

Physically, Mikel was a freak. He still is in some regards whereas Chalobah can look a little skinny. The interesting thing is that hasn't shown itself to be a factor in his time at Watford, indeed he's looked dominant in a league that can prioritise physicality over technique. Still to this day, Mikel uses his strength to shield the ball if he gets caught in possession (something that even Steaua can do apparently), although that's not to say it's all he does. Chalobah doesn't do that quite so much preferring to move the ball no before that happens.

Now if you think I'm revising history when talking about Mikel, that's fair enough. Physically he was top class. Technically he was great. Mentally, not what you'd want. Chalobah excels in these three categories.

I remember very well the reports of Mourinho fining him for lateness. I can't for the life of me see how this affects his 'mental approach' to football though. Mikel came from a second division team in Norway and found himself at the home of the English champions. Of course he would struggle with the massive leap in professionalism so early on and to his credit he hasn't been in trouble with the club since. I don't think you can describe Mikel not playing as being 'dropped' considering we had Makelele, Ballack, Essien and Lampard at the club. That was 4 of the top 10 or 15 midfielders in the world at one club at the same time. I find it laughable that you can describe Mikel not playing as being 'dropped' under those circumstances. Would Chalobah have made 42 appearances in 2006-2007 like Mikel did with those players aorund? He wouldn't get even half that number and I like the kid so there's absolutely no bias.

Honestly I get that you're not a big Mikel fan but some of the stuff you've written there is just absurd. All the arbitrary stuff about character and mentality makes little to no sense. Mikel was a fantastic young player and you don't need to knock him to big up Chalobah.

[The only place to be 11,313]

I remember very well the reports of Mourinho fining him for lateness. I can't for the life of me see how this affects his 'mental approach' to football though.

Really? You don't think the way a person conducts themselves is an indicator of their attitude to their profession?

That's extraordinary. It's not just in sport where this is pertinent, but in all walks of life. It doesn't mean one can't change but it's these intangibles which you tend to find in winners. Look at any sportsperson at the top of their profession and look at the attitude they have towards training.

Indeed his own father seemed to have some concerns during this period.

Mikel came from a second division team in Norway and found himself at the home of the English champions. Of course he would struggle with the massive leap in professionalism so early on and to his credit he hasn't been in trouble with the club since. I don't think you can describe Mikel not playing as being 'dropped' considering we had Makelele, Ballack, Essien and Lampard at the club. That was 4 of the top 10 or 15 midfielders in the world at one club at the same time. I find it laughable that you can describe Mikel not playing as being 'dropped' under those circumstances. Would Chalobah have made 42 appearances in 2006-2007 like Mikel did with those players aorund? He wouldn't get even half that number and I like the kid so there's absolutely no bias.

He was dropped for some time after the Reading game if I remember correctly, but he came back from that well in the second-half of the season. You may find it laughable but I'm not altogether sure it's incorrect - if you have the stats to correct me that would be most helpful.

Honestly I get that you're not a big Mikel fan but some of the stuff you've written there is just absurd. All the arbitrary stuff about character and mentality makes little to no sense. Mikel was a fantastic young player and you don't need to knock him to big up Chalobah.

I respect that you've taken the time to type a response but I really don't think the stuff about character is arbitrary. Indeed it's integral to the way players conducts themselves throughout their careers and I don't think I've been unfair.

As I said before, if you actually want to discuss the players and their attributes then I would welcome that discussion.

[Styles 9,790]

Really? You don't think the way a person conducts themselves is an indicator of their attitude to their profession?

That's extraordinary. It's not just in sport where this is pertinent, but in all walks of life. It doesn't mean one can't change but it's these intangibles which you tend to find in winners. Look at any sportsperson at the top of their profession and look at the attitude they have towards training.

Indeed his own father seemed to have some concerns during this period.

He was dropped for some time after the Reading game if I remember correctly, but he came back from that well in the second-half of the season. You may find it laughable but I'm not altogether sure it's incorrect - if you have the stats to correct me that would be most helpful.

I respect that you've taken the time to type a response but I really don't think the stuff about character is arbitrary. Indeed it's integral to the way players conducts themselves throughout their careers and I don't think I've been unfair.

As I said before, if you actually want to discuss the players and their attributes then I would welcome that discussion.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on who was the better young player mate. I say Mikel you say Chalobah, we don't need to argue about it for the next hour when it's clear I can't change your mind and vice versa. :tophat:

[Santiago. 1,500]

Juventus also have the best midfield trio in Europe, and a back 3 that dominates opponents to the extent where they leave the field feeling like Fernando Torres. That solidity and backbone is something Chalobah will not have if he returns next season.

The transition for Pogba cannot be compared.

Xavi, Iniesta, and Busquets play for Barca, unless their is this mysterious transfer I didn't know about it...

[JDY 1,290]

Xavi, Iniesta, and Busquets play for Barca, unless their is this mysterious transfer I didn't know about it...

Nope, Juventus have the most complete midfield IMO

[Leif 6,006]

Messi was ready. Owen was ready. Rooney was ready.

They were all important fixtures in their senior teams at young ages and I doubt they'd be the players they are today unless they were thrown in at the deep end when they were.

[Santiago. 1,500]

Nope, Juventus have the most complete midfield IMO

True. But no club in the world matches the chemistry and nature of the game between Xaviniestquets. And that alone out weighs any midfield in the world.

[communicate 2,703]

For me for our squad he is going to be our 3rd dm behind mikel and romeu which mean he is going to play cery little next year. It's better for him to go on loan, if he is as good as some of people in this forum think then there should be plenty of suitors for him