Is Chalobah ready for the first-team?

[The only place to be 11,313]

I don't think "is he ready" is the right question because you can't prove that anybody is not ready. Can you prove that Leif isn't good enough for Chelsea? He is good enough to play sparingly for Chelsea. Lots of players are. The real question is, is it a good move for him to be at Chelsea next season, and the answer is almost certainly no. It's not good for him and it's not good for the club. He needs to develop and he won't do that at Chelsea.

Is he a photograph? What does 'develop' actually mean? Does he need to develop wings, because that's unlikely.

It's these meaningless generalities that I really wanted to move away from in this discussion. I want to know specifically what areas of his game he needs to develop.

Also, people are making a massive mistake if they think that looking very good in the Championship equates to success in the Premier League. It's a massive massive step up. What European league would be the equal of the Championship? The Championship has no teams in UEFA's top 450. Would you say that somebody who has done very well in the Latvian or Slovenian first division is ready to play regularly for Chelsea? Of course not.

As I pointed out, this kid has looked exceptional at every level he's played at. Again, this is a case of people talking about what an 18 year old should be rather than what Nathanial Chalobah actually is. This isn't a thread about Todd Kane. This isn't a thread about Billy Clifford. This isn't a thread about Sam Walker.

This is a thread about Nathanial Chalobah - let's try taking about him.

You'd want them to prove their worth at a higher level. How many players have come from the Championship and made immediate impacts with top clubs? I actually can't think of any of the top of my head. Chelsea need to win, we need to improve, we need to challenge for trophies. That's the purpose of the club. People are way too obsessed with making sure our young players get a shot.

Very few. That's why he'd be the exception, and the reason supporters of this club want the youth to do well is because football isn't just about winning trophies. It's about turning up at youth games and seeing a kid do something amazing, and then watching him grow to become a key player in the squad. It's about forming those emotional attachments with players on the pitch - winning the CL was special but seeing Lamps, JT, Drogba, Ashley and Cech up there with Robbie made it even more special.

It doesn't really matter because we're going to get a new manager and some new signings next season. Chelsea are going to spend tens of millions of pounds like every year. That's what top teams in England do to stay competitive. I'd say the odds of him playing a big role at Chelsea next season are under 100/1. The most likely scenario is a loan to a lower-table Premier League side and probably for more than one year. (And Pogba is a very different case. Italian teams have almost no money so they have to give young players chances. Seria A clubs spent a net 12M pounds. Premier League clubs spent 364M.)

I have no doubt we will sign players, but I think that if this man is given a chance to compete for a spot then he'll have a good chance of making the squad.

No top team has 2-3 youngsters in their starting XI. (If by unproven you mean having little experience at the top level). It's rare to even have one and when they do have one, it's almost always someone they scouted and bought. You look at players who have say, under 25 games of good European league experience.. ManU, Man City, Spurs, and Arsenal have a combined 0 players in the regular starting XI. Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Bayern also have 0. If you go to less than 50 games experience at a top level, you have a few like Nestasic and Caulker. If you talk about players that play regularly but aren't starting XI you get Verane, Tello, Shaquiri, and others. but again, it's a small number of players. If you can involve one young, inexperienced player in the regular rotation every year, you're doing well. I you're trying to get 2-3 unproven youngsters in your starting XI, you're not a contender, you're a mid-table team. There's too much money in football now, to compete with youngsters. You're going to beat teams buying world-class players and full internationals by bringing in players who looked good in the Championship or impressed in the youth team?

No mention of how good Chalobah is, what type of skills he has, what he needs to improve upon....

How many times this season have you watched him play?

It's not easy to adapt to Premier League football. You look at someone like Oscar who was playing at a fairly high level in Brazil and for their national team, and he's had a very tough year and he's miles ahead of Chalobah right now.

Miles ahead in what regard? Oscar is a completely different type of player on a completely different development schedule. Let's actually have a discussion about Chalobah at some point.

I like Chalobah's future, but what's the point in trying to force it? Let him develop at his own pace and if/when he's ready to step in and play a big part.

You should really start a thread explaining why Chalobah isn't ready.

Chelsea have a number of young players who are ready to contribute. De Bruyne and Lukaku should be on the squad next year and Courtois is ready when needed. Our youth policy is to buy the best young players and it's generally working.

Our youth policy is to buy young players AND develop our own.

There's no need to force things. (In fact, I think Tom Cleverly another former Watford loanee is a good example of how to do things. He was Watford's player of the year in 2009-2010, ManU then loaned him to Wigan in the Premier League the next season where he played 25 games. Last year, he came back to ManU and played in 15 matches and this year, he's forced himself into a regular and important role).

Ah Cleverley - a player who wasn't as good as Chalobah when he was 18, isn't as good as he is now and will never be as good as him (to paraphrase Bret Hart).

Look, I get what you're saying. I understand how young players usually develop. What we're discussing is making an exception for some players.

What I wanted to ask is whether Chalobah is an exceptional talent, and if he is shouldn't we be making exceptions for him?

[The only place to be 11,313]

I am a huge fan of the guy, watched him a lot in Chelsea youth games and was almost always impressed.

I see him as a star in the future, perhaps even becoming the captain. He fits my vision of the Essien-role in the old 4-3-3 perfectly, and that is why I am keen on seeing him develop as well as possible.

The last point is why I do not want to see him with the first team next season. At this point in his career, development is key, and development comes mainly from playing against qualified opposition. He is obviously ready for the next step after the championship, meaning a loan to a club in the best leagues.

While from an emotional point of view I would absolutely love to see him play day in and day out in Chelsea starting today, we have to remember that he is after all an 18-year old kid who hasnt yet played a full season. Saying that he is ready for being an important player in the first team at this point is completely unfounded.

The championship is a much worse league than the premier league, and we have no idea how he will cope with that step. Adding to that, he is far from a finished player, there are still issues that he can improve. I would like to see a higher tempo in his game and even more strength in his body as two minor examples.

I don't think he needs to work on his tempo to be honest. He's never going to be a Ramires, haring around the pitch and that's a good thing. He's got a languid style reminiscent of a Vieira, and he allows the ball to most of the work. He shows plenty of hustle getting back as well, something that Mikel has rarely shown.

In fact isn't that one of the points - we're saying he needs to up his tempo when John Obi Mikel has made almost 300 appearances playing somewhere close to horizontal??

As for strength, the one thing the Championship has over most other leagues is physicality and he's looked more than comfortable in one of the more combative areas of the pitch.

Chelsea is not at the moment the best place to be developed in, and most managers that would come here would have an immense pressure on them to achieve success, it is highly debatable whether they would be prepared to take such a huge risk in such an important position, not from the start at any rate. Do not even get me started on how unlikely any playing time would be for him if drifted out of top3.

That's a fair point unfortunately.

No, I do believe in the kid, but I think everyone in this scenario would benefit if he spent around two more years on a loan, provided that it is in a premier league club where he gets to play regurarly. Preferebly with Watford the first season if they go up, and then in a club like Everton the next one.

So why would the managers at a club looking to avoid relegation or fight for a European spot be more inclined to play him?

I personally would have a look at him pre-season, maybe even keep him for the first three months of the season and give him cup games and the odd EL/CL game. If he holds his own, then great, if he struggles then get him to a side in the PL or in Europe to get him top flight experience. His youth and relative inexperience make him a risk at the top level, who's prepared to take it?

That's a pretty good suggestion.

I personally don't think we'll look to buy another defensive midfielder and still with Mikel, Romeu, Rami and Luiz whilst buying a playmaker like Modric or Benat.

In that situation he'd be competing with Mikel, Romeu and Ramires for a spot in pre-season and I'd fancy his chances. Yes he's young, yes he's relatively inexperienced but he's good and I'll take being good over being experienced every day of the week.

[bushman 2,043]

So much written about someone who is not ready & most likely won´t be ready next season anyways.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

Does he have a high potential? Yes

Will the media make it hard for him because of inexperience in the EPL? Most definately

Will he be benched in chelsea for a long time if he has one bad peformance? Yes

Will he have to wait for only the capital one cup and few fa cup matches to have a chance to play? Yes we all know because he will be behind ramires, mikel, romeu and possibly essien

Do we want another example of lukaku's first season situation, where he had no playing time bcos pple thought he was not ready? No

Because of all these questions, the best solution is to leave him in his club if they get promoted into the EPL and get him back in January if he shows he can peform at the highest level in england. If not, he can spend the full season there and return to chelsea with enough experience (30+ epl games in his belt) to challenge our DM's for the first team spot

[kellzfresh 7,229]

Double post

[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