🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Nathaniel Chalobah

[lionsden 4,689]

Would Wilshere and Pogba be the players they are now (at age 21 mind you) if Arsenal & Juventus hadn't given them the platform to step up to the first team? Of course they wouldn't. At age 21? Not a chance and I think a better question we should perhaps be asking is would those two be where they are now if they had came through Chelsea's academy. In other words, If we had Pogba & Wilshere in our books, would they have developed into the top players they are now at the age of 21? Or would they still be perpetually floating from one loan to another?

Also, I must have missed something because I made the argument that Pogba at utd was just another hyped up talented prospect before moving to Juventus where he was then able to establish himself as an exceptional talent and you're going off on a tangent of drawing comparisons to Lewis baker. I mean really, what relevance does Lewis Baker have in this discussion? Baker is criminally underrated among a lot of cfc fans let alone supporters of other club. Nate on the other hand is publicly known as an emerging young talent and regularly features in lists of top youth prospects. Lewis Baker doesn't have that hype and public profile around him. Using him as an example is completely inconsequential and just pointless. Pogba drew media attention because not only was he a youth prospect but he was also a Man Utd top youth prospect, that carries some value. Less talented young prospects at Utd have garnered similar degrees of media spotlight, Ravel Morrison being an example so the attention Pogba received in the press isn't really indicative of anything. Also the fact that he had top clubs after his signature can't be used as any big indicator. Van Ginkel was rumoured to have Utd, Juventus and of course Chelsea, all interested in him but you, Choulo, wouldn't call him an exceptional talent would you?

Anyway this whole thing of trying to determine whether Nate is exactly on the same level that Pogba was at that age - is a minutiae detail and besides the point. I think the point myself and a few others on here are trying to make is if Utd can take a risk in progressing young prospects like Januzaj and if Arsenal can give first team opportunities to gnabry then why can't we and why shouldn't we do the same with our own best youth prospect?

Because the universe would cease to exist and we had lose every single game by 10 goals margin.. . . .so i have heard.

[Reddish-Blue 2,506]

Just one question: If Pogba was just another hyped up youth player, why did his move to Juvenile cause so much media attention? Surely if, let's say, Lewis Baker moves to Juve now, utd fans probably won't even hear about it.

Do you really think that Pogba and Wilshere are where they are just because they were given first team matches? They are there because they are incredible talents and were good enough to be with the first team. Nathanial still isn't and it should be proof enough that he's struggling for minutes in the championship, how do you expect him to get enough minutes for him to develop properly here?!

The media attention came from the fact that United had a rubbish midfield yet Fergie was unwilling to take a chance on Pogba.

Pogba had plenty of talent, I remember Scholes saying in an interview for MUTV (in relation to Pogba): You can't teach flair, technique & determination.

As for the Lewis Baker comment...comeon, let's be serious, that was an unfair comparison..in Baker's case, he'll probably end up playing Championship/League 1 football.

[remains of the day 564]

Because the universe would cease to exist and we had lose every single game by 10 goals margin.. . . .so i have heard.

Of course, and also let's not forget how Nathaniel has been struggling to get minutes at Forest......for a whole TWO months! If that just doesn't prove to people that he'll never make it at Chelsea I don't know what will....

[dee25 1,044]

Definitely a fascinating discussion. I was creeping though the Pogba thread on Redcafe earlier and as I skimmed through the comments it was like Deja Vu. It's like someone took this thread and transported it over there. These are a few interesting comments I came across. These were posted in 2011 when Pogba was 18.

Pogba still has a lot to prove in reserves football, so I'm not sure why you would think on that basis that he's ready for the first team. He has boundless amounts of talent but currently he is not good to merit a few minutes in the cups at the end of games. He's not Ryan Giggs, he's not a left winger and it's not 1991.

it's not a comparison to giggs. It's an example of a talented kid who's not fully developed and who didn't go out on loan but was given an opportunity and now he's out most successful player. That is not a comparison. They're not like to for like. It was to point out, that not every bleeping player needs to go out on loan or even be fully developed........

The likes of Pogba and Morrison may be great players in the future but for me they're not the answer now - nor is it fair to expect them to be, so hopefully a new central player with real talent and ability will come in and be the missing peice of the puzzle.

Kiko had scored a hat-trick in the previous reserve game before getting that chance. Pogba is still not ready yet for more than a few minutes at the end of games at most.

And re: your point that 'if you're good enough you're old enough, Fergie thinks he's obviously not good enough yet, and with all due respect, his opinion > yours.

Every single one of them had done more than Pgba has by the time they got their chance.

Giggs was the star player in the youths and reserves, Fabregas ran the show for Arsenal when he has a chance in the carling cup at 16 after bossing the reserves, fabio and rafael each got a game in a preseason reserves friendly and looked so good from the first moment that they couldnt help but be fast tracked into the first team. Pogba still struggles at a reserve level that gets weaker year on year. Let's walk before we can run, eh?

To me, he looks like a promising young player with a lot more development to come. League Cup ties against lower league opposition are about his level right now and he certainly doesn't look ready for Premiership football.

I'm sure there's a new trend for people to expect every player to be fully developed by the age of 18 and, if not, they're considered ready for the scrap heap. If Pogba has half a brain he'll realise that he still needs to improve in a lot of areas before he can be trusted with a first team spot.

Very odd argument to suggest that, just because he's 18 and is starting to form into a good player, he'd instantly expect to be playing Premiership matches and will demand a move away if not.

Hindsight really is 20/20 huh? Two things are obvious to me 1. Pogba's talent was clear for all to see but at 18 years I don't think he was so much more better than Chalobah is right now nor was he more further along in his development. From the sound of it, he was even struggling in the reserves and 2) when it comes to blooding in young players they'll always be doubters and naysayers no matter how talented the youth is.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Definitely a fascinating discussion. I was creeping though the Pogba thread on Redcafe earlier and as I skimmed through the comments it was like Deja Vu. It's like someone took this thread and transported it over there. These are a few interesting comments I came across. These were posted in 2011 when Pogba was 18.

Hindsight really is 20/20 huh? Two things are obvious to me 1. Pogba's talent was clear for all to see but at 18 years I don't think he was so much more better than Chalobah is right now nor was he more further along in his development. From the sound of it, he was even struggling in the reserves and 2) when it comes to blooding in young players they'll always be doubters and naysayers no matter how talented the youth is.

Great post.

There will always be people saying why something shouldn't be done, but I simply don't understand it when what we've been doing hasn't exactly been successful.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Unused sub again. Failure of a loan spell. Well done Chelsea.

[We Hate Scouse 10,326]

Unused sub again. Failure of a loan spell. Well done Chelsea.

He was a sub against Burnley the other week and got very good reviews from the Forest fans. Apparently he completely kept them in the game and they would've lost without him. Disappointing it didn't warrant him a start on Friday.

Hopefully he will feature on Tuesday against Millwall.

[The Skipper 20,609]

Get him back. Would've/should've started today.

[Mufassir08 2,400]

With his loan deal expiring in Jan maybe we should recall him looking at our midfield problems.

[We Hate Scouse 10,326]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/chelseas-nathan-chalobah-eyed-transfer-2874336

Leeds want Chelsea’s England Under-21 cap Nathan Chalobah at the end of his current loan deal with Championship rivals Nottingham Forest.

Chalobah will return to Stamford Bridge next month after a mixed spell in the Midlands.

And Leeds want the talented midfielder on loan as they look to improve their squad with funds they hope will arrive in January from new investors.

Chalobah, 18, is on a big salary at the Blues, who will look to recoup that money when they send him to his next home.

The youngster was outstanding for Watford on loan last season, helping them reach the Championship Play-off Final, but it has not worked out so well for him at Forest.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Get him back. Would've/should've started today.

With his loan deal expiring in Jan maybe we should recall him looking at our midfield problems.

I really don't get how you expect someone who can't get into Nottingham's to start for Chelsea. The most he'll get is a couple of starts in the League Cup or against teams of lower leagues in the FA cup.

I know that we have some serious issues at CM, but to suggest that the options we have there are worse than championship players like Lansbury, Majewski and Jara that Nathanial would start over them is an over-exaggeration to say the least.

He should go back on loan in Jan and hopefully to team where he will play and be a key player, not to the team that pays the most of his salary.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Get him back. Would've/should've started today.

I think he might've. Essien really didn't do much and Chalobah is really being wasted in Nottingham, whereas he would at least be another option here. Sometimes it just doesn't work out at a club and the manager simply doesn't fancy you whereas at least he'd be training around world-class players and maybe getting some time here and there.

My own view is that he has everything to be a quality player for us but he needs to be given that chance and that's something the club (and some 'fans') seem reluctant to do despite us looking poor in the position he plays. Yet these same 'fans' would love us to sign Paul Pogba (I would too but the guy was underrated by many just because he was in United reserves, before getting a chance with those cunts in Turin).

[Strike 7,489]

The squad was stacked with 25 international level players in the summer. There's the biggest indicator that youth won't be integrated very easily into the team here. Some of the youth players over the years didn't turn out so well even outside Chelsea (most of Arnesen's young signings) but now the quality is hardly an argument. Last year for example, Nathan Ake got a bit of first team football and he more than held his own. I remember he had a good game against Everton at the end of the season. Even got 90 minutes against Rubin Kazan and Middlesbrough in the cups. Not even a sniff of first team football now

[remains of the day 564]

I really don't get how you expect someone who can't get into Nottingham's to start for Chelsea. The most he'll get is a couple of starts in the League Cup or against teams of lower leagues in the FA cup. I know that we have some serious issues at CM, but to suggest that the options we have there are worse than championship players like Lansbury, Majewski and Jara that Nathanial would start over them is an over-exaggeration to say the least. He should go back on loan in Jan and hopefully to team where he will play and be a key player, not to the team that pays the most of his salary.

There're many examples of PL players who despite failing to impress during their loan spells in the championship returned to the PL & were able to play an important role for their clubs. Of course Barkley & Townsend are the obvious examples but there's also Begovic who struggled in his loan spells and looked nothing like a PL quality keeper. Agbonlahor was terrible in the championships, didn't even manage up to 10 apps but returned to Villa the next season and started almost every game. So this notion that Nat struggling for playing time at Forest is somehow indicative that he's not ready to do a job in midfield, I'm sorry to say, is myopic thinking. Him failing to impress at Forest can't be attributed to his ability nor his 'readiness.' He's the same player who easily excelled last season in the same league and was one of the best players, so why look at his performances so far this season in isolation? Many non-footballing factors also play a part, i.e relationship with manager.

Also Choulo you've mentioned the wage issue a few times now, just want to point out that one reason why Chelsea would insist that a club interested in acquiring Nat on loan must pay his full wages is more for collateral purposes than anything. If a club is covering the full wages of a player they're more likely to take more of an invested interest in the development/wellbeing of said player than they would if there were no added financial risks to them. It doesn't always work but it's a good way of ensuring that clubs take more 'ownership' of the player during the loan spell.

If Nat didn't have that injury right before the season I suspect there might have been more suitors.

[lucio 5,418]

There're many examples of PL players who despite failing to impress during their loan spells in the championship returned to the PL & were able to play an important role for their clubs. Of course Barkley & Townsend are the obvious examples but there's also Begovic who struggled in his loan spells and looked nothing like a PL quality keeper. Agbonlahor was terrible in the championships, didn't even manage up to 10 apps but returned to Villa the next season and started almost every game. So this notion that Nat struggling for playing time at Forrest is somehow indicative that he's not ready to do a job in midfield, I'm sorry to say, is myopic thinking. Him failing to impress at Forrest can't be attributed to his ability nor his 'readiness.' He's the same player who easily excelled last season in the same league and was one of the best players, so why look at his performances so far this season in isolation? Many non-footballing factors also play a part, i.e relationship with manager.

Also Choulo you've mentioned the wage issue a few times now, just want to point out that one reason why Chelsea would insist that a club interested in acquiring Nat on loan must pay his full wages is more for collateral purposes than anything. If a club is covering the full wages of a player they're more likely to take more of an invested interest in the development/wellbeing of said player than they would if there were no added financial risks to them. It doesn't always work but it's a good way of ensuring that clubs take more 'ownership' of the player during the loan spell.

If Nat didn't have that injury right before the season I suspect there might have been more suitors.

i guess some players find it much harder with crap team mates and management. mourinho said

"He is a very, very good player. I like him very much - very, very much. I am very impressed. For sure, a Chelsea player , for sure. We think he is there.

"He could be in our squad already. But we think one more season and it will be his last one out on loan."

i dont think it is absurd to think he could be playing for us occasionally right now

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

There're many examples of PL players who despite failing to impress during their loan spells in the championship returned to the PL & were able to play an important role for their clubs. Of course Barkley & Townsend are the obvious examples but there's also Begovic who struggled in his loan spells and looked nothing like a PL quality keeper. Agbonlahor was terrible in the championships, didn't even manage up to 10 apps but returned to Villa the next season and started almost every game. So this notion that Nat struggling for playing time at Forrest is somehow indicative that he's not ready to do a job in midfield, I'm sorry to say, is myopic thinking. Him failing to impress at Forrest can't be attributed to his ability nor his 'readiness.' He's the same player who easily excelled last season in the same league and was one of the best players, so why look at his performances so far this season in isolation? Many non-footballing factors also play a part, i.e relationship with manager.

Basically all your descriptions are wrong. Barkley was given a one month loan spell and scored 4 goals in 13 games where he was good. Townsend only got into the Spurs team because he impressed with QPR in the Premier League on loan. (Besides, Townsend really isn't a very good player right now anyway, he just shoots a ton and shouldn't be playing for Spurs with any regularity). Begovic was good in his loan spells and was only recalled because Portsmouth needed him. Tony Pullis said this about him when they signed him for a high fee for a keeper when you say he was struggling . "We have been tracking Asmir for some time and we believe that potentially he is the best young keeper in the country." Hardly sounds like someone who was struggling to make any impression does it? Abagnlahor struggled as a 19 YO both on loan and with Villa and yes, he started the next season (note, not the same season he was struggling but a year later) and had played almost every game and had a decent year but that is Villa, a mid-table and lower side that can take chances on unproven players not a team with high aspirations.. Even if all you said was true (which it isn't) you're still talking about a handful of examples of players struggling in the Championship League and then making an impact for worse teams than Chelsea in the Premier League versus countless examples of players who succeeded into the Championship and still weren't good enough for the Premier League.

Have a look at the Championship teams of the year. The best of the best players in the league and at how few of them ever become Premier League players at all, never mind with top teams. The Championship is miles away from the Premier League and galaxies away from the top of the Premier League and right now Chalobah isn't playing much and isn't in any sort of form.. You want Lukaku to get a shot? Yeah, I'm with you You want De Bruyne to get more chances. Sure. These are players who have had success at a top level. You want a player who has never played a game at a top level in his life and who is currently struggling to get playing time in a team that doesn't have a single player good enough to be near Chelsea to become a regular player? It's once again absurdly overrating youth. Chalobah is a fantastic prospect with a bright future but he needs to develop and that is going to take time.

[herpthederp 122]

McEachran looks average in the Championship at 20 yet looked at home in the Champions League at 17/18. It's difficult to judge midfield players in the Championship because to thrive they need good players around them, and they just don't have that down there. Barkley wasn't impressive in the Championship, and there were a few Wednesday fans complaining about the manager sticking with him, then he comes back to the Premier League and was Everton's best player in a match against Arsenal. You don't know how players will perform in a Premier League environment until you throw them into one, and ff you're going to let careers live or die based how well a player does in the Championship, then you're going to be pissing talent down the drain left, right and centre.

[remains of the day 564]

What’s your point @TorontoChelsea? I can pull out about a dozen quotes from Zola & Billy Davies lauding praises on Nat. Begovic’s potential (which is what Pulis is speaking about) isn’t the point of argument is it? Pulis' comments doesn’t prove one way or another that Begovic had a good spell (as you seem to be claiming) at Ipswich or even at Yeovil, which I don’t think he did. When I think of successful loan spells, I think of players putting in quality and consistent enough performances that sets them apart from the rest and draws them accolades. Begovic's time at Ipswich doesn’t fall into that category for me. He made only a handful of apps and his inconsistency and constant errors/blunders was a point of frustration among supporters. Yes, he was recalled by Portsmouth due to injury but then (surprisingly) did very well for them. Townsend.....did he really impress at QPR? Besides that one screamer, I don’t remember him making much of an impression. Barkley, was excellent for sheff weds where he (as you mentioned) scored about 4 goals, what you didn't mention though is that after impressing for sheff weds he was loaned out again to Leeds where he struggled for playing time. I don't think he scored any goals at Leeds and in the two months or so he was there, made only like 4 apps.

Abagnlahor struggled as a 19 YO both on loan and with Villa and yes, he started the next season (note, not the same season he was struggling but a year later) and had played almost every game and had a decent year but that is Villa, a mid-table and lower side that can take chances on unproven players not a team with high aspirations

So, for clarity sake, are you suggesting that the only clubs who take such risks on unproven players are mid-table/lower sides?

Even if all you said was true (which it isn't) you're still talking about a handful of examples of players struggling in the Championship League and then making an impact for worse teams than Chelsea in the Premier League versus countless examples of players who succeeded into the Championship and still weren't good enough for the Premier League.

But that's exactly the general point I’m making, players can go to a championship club put in top class performances and still fail in the PL. The opposite can happen as well. In bringing in the example of Begovic, my point is that loan spells at championship clubs (or any club for that matter) can't be used as an indicator to predict whether a player will be successful or not in their parent club. The only way to determine the readiness of a player is by actually giving them opportunities in the first team.

Anyway, in the last few posts I’ve made, I think my underlying argument has been clear and that is that we should take a risk in bedding Nathaniel into the first team, particularly after his successful loan spell at Watford. Note, I’m not saying that Chalobah is already better than Mikel, Ramires et al, nor I’m I arguing that he should become a regular. I’m also not inferring that he’s the answer to our midfield problems. What I’m saying is that the kid is good enough to be given chances in the first team, particularly since centre midfield is already a weak area for us, thus we can certainly then afford to take more liberties in playing a youngster without risking a significant drop in quality.

I think the idea that you find this suggestion so absurd and the fact you’re so quick to file it under the heading of “overrating youth” is frankly absurd in itself. You’re free to call my suggestion idealistic, you can call it unrealistic and you certainly would have been justified in calling it ‘outdated’ but it's absolutely not "absurdly overrating a youth" to suggest that Nat should continue his development here. After all, two of our rivals have already given first team opportunities to less experienced youngsters than nat. Even we gave a few apps to Ake last season and to Josh a few seasons back. I see absolutely no reason why Nat can't replace someone like Essien in the squad.

Btw, this thing of "overrating youth" - you know, it's also possible to "underrate youth" as well which is just as problematic as the former.

ou want Lukaku to get a shot? Yeah, I'm with you You want De Bruyne to get more chances. Sure. These are players who have had success at a top level.

Are you really, though? See that’s interesting because from what I remember you suggested that Lukaku isn’t better than Ba/torres and you were definitely in favour of him being loaned out again. In fact, I’m going to boldly say that in as much as you go on about youth needing to prove themselves at a top level first before they can apparently get a sniff at playing for Chelsea, I really don’t think your general stance would change all that much even if, lets say, Nathaniel had come off of a good loan spell at a lower PL side.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

There're many examples of PL players who despite failing to impress during their loan spells in the championship returned to the PL & were able to play an important role for their clubs. Of course Barkley & Townsend are the obvious examples but there's also Begovic who struggled in his loan spells and looked nothing like a PL quality keeper. Agbonlahor was terrible in the championships, didn't even manage up to 10 apps but returned to Villa the next season and started almost every game. So this notion that Nat struggling for playing time at Forest is somehow indicative that he's not ready to do a job in midfield, I'm sorry to say, is myopic thinking. Him failing to impress at Forest can't be attributed to his ability nor his 'readiness.' He's the same player who easily excelled last season in the same league and was one of the best players, so why look at his performances so far this season in isolation? Many non-footballing factors also play a part, i.e relationship with manager.

Also Choulo you've mentioned the wage issue a few times now, just want to point out that one reason why Chelsea would insist that a club interested in acquiring Nat on loan must pay his full wages is more for collateral purposes than anything. If a club is covering the full wages of a player they're more likely to take more of an invested interest in the development/wellbeing of said player than they would if there were no added financial risks to them. It doesn't always work but it's a good way of ensuring that clubs take more 'ownership' of the player during the loan spell.

If Nat didn't have that injury right before the season I suspect there might have been more suitors.

Even if we assume that all the examples given are true, those are the exceptions, not the rule. Surely it's not that absurd to suggest that a player that is not doing well at a lower league will probably not get into our team.

My point is, expecting an out of form teenager to come into a side like Chelsea and in the middle of the season when he was not with the team before that and does not know the system and where there are four players ahead of him for his position on both ability and experience is pretty desperate. Nathanial just isn't the solution right now and having him back would just be unfair to him and his development. We need to find him a loan where he will be guaranteed playing time.

As for the wage thing, while your theory does have some logic in it, it just did apply to reality in this case at least. Especially if you consider that the other club that was interested in in taking Nathanial is Watford where he did so well last season, knows the system and where he loves the manager who knows and trusts him. He would have been a nailed on starter in the spot that he earned there last season. In this case, we really only preferred to loan him to Forest for an extra 5k/wk.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

Sometimes the player simply isnt good enough and sometimes the club fucks up players talent. Im afraid despite our academy is good, we dont have club philosophy, board or manager who would know best for young players produce or buy.

I just hope we make one player who will come through our ranks, let it be Chalobah, Rlc or someone third, I doubt we will see more than one play for us regulary, and even one will be quite difficult.