🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Nathaniel Chalobah

[The Skipper 20,609]

Whats your point @TorontoChelsea? I can pull out about a dozen quotes from Zola & Billy Davies lauding praises on Nat. Begovics potential (which is what Pulis is speaking about) isnt the point of argument is it? Pulis' comments doesnt 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 dont 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 doesnt 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 dont 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.

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

But that's exactly the general point Im 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 Ive 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, Im not saying that Chalobah is already better than Mikel, Ramires et al, nor Im I arguing that he should become a regular. Im also not inferring that hes the answer to our midfield problems. What Im 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 youre so quick to file it under the heading of overrating youth is frankly absurd in itself. Youre 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.

Are you really, though? See thats interesting because from what I remember you suggested that Lukaku isnt better than Ba/torres and you were definitely in favour of him being loaned out again. In fact, Im 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 dont 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.

Excellent post. Nail on head.

Chalobah could definitely take Essien's spot in the squad. Hope he does when he comes back in January.

[The only place to be 11,313]

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.

http://www.redcafe.net/threads/paul-pogba.278058/page-10

Page 10 contains posts from around 2011. It's then you'll start seeing a few people saying Pogba should be given a shot and then others saying 'it's a big jump' and 'he's too young and inexperienced'. That debate goes on for a couple of years, although it's a bit sadder now.

The simple fact is that we don't know how well he'd do if he was given a shot, but we can make guesses based on what we've seen of him.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Excellent post. Nail on head.

Chalobah could definitely take Essien's spot in the squad. Hope he does when he comes back in January.

Yeah, he probably can, but Essien has played less than 180 mins so far this season, do we want Nathanial to play that role with our squad when he can be playing regularly and developing elsewhere?

[Reddish-Blue 2,506]

http://www.redcafe.net/threads/paul-pogba.278058/page-10

Page 10 contains posts from around 2011. It's then you'll start seeing a few people saying Pogba should be given a shot and then others saying 'it's a big jump' and 'he's too young and inexperienced'. That debate goes on for a couple of years, although it's a bit sadder now.

The simple fact is that we don't know how well he'd do if he was given a shot, but we can make guesses based on what we've seen of him.

Exactly.

In terms of Chalobah, I'd bring him back in January and ease him into the first team

Give him games against mid-table sides and see how he goes.

Even though he wouldn't be playing regularly at Chelsea, he'd at least be able to strengthen relations with our key players of the future (e.g. Hazard, Oscar, Ramires).

[dee25 1,044]

Yeah, he probably can, but Essien has played less than 180 mins so far this season, do we want Nathanial to play that role with our squad when he can be playing regularly and developing elsewhere?

Are we assuming that Essien wouldn't have seen more minutes if he were more fit? Even Van Ginkel was played ahead of Essien.

[Reddish-Blue 2,506]

Yeah, he probably can, but Essien has played less than 180 mins so far this season, do we want Nathanial to play that role with our squad when he can be playing regularly and developing elsewhere?

He could be playing regularly at Championship level...but will that really benefit him?

I've worked with young players for 3-4 years and sometimes they lose motivation when they are asked to constantly change clubs for a loan spell...

Chalobah was a part of Watford's first team, he knew the coach, the system and the players....and then this season, he goes to Nottingham and he just doesn't seem to have settled in.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Are we assuming that Essien wouldn't have seen more minutes if he were more fit? Even Van Ginkel was played ahead of Essien.

Well that's simply because Jose could trust MVG more than Essien. How many games have we had this season where we could take risks and not start our best players especially at CM? Our performances as team are still not "stable" enough for us to take chances on young players. That's why Kalas, who was promised at least 15 starts by Jose in preseason has only featured for 2 minutes so far.

He could be playing regularly at Championship level...but will that really benefit him?

I've worked with young players for 3-4 years and sometimes they lose motivation when they are asked to constantly change clubs for a loan spell...

Chalobah was a part of Watford's first team, he knew the coach, the system and the players....and then this season, he goes to Nottingham and he just doesn't seem to have settled in.

I agree that the decision to send him to Nottingham was stupid especially when we could have sent him back to Watford where he had earned a starting spot and knows and loves the manager. But unfortunately, for young talents like Nathanial at a club like Chelsea, I don't see any other way than going on loan repeatedly at this age. We just can't allow him the time and patience of putting up with mistakes and sub-par performances, because every teenage footballer no matter how good he is will have plenty of those. There is just too much pressure on the manager and the team to get results.

So to answer your first question, yes playing time for a kid his age even in the championship WILL help him develop like it did last year. Nothing can replace actually playing competitive football.

[dee25 1,044]

Well that's simply because Jose could trust MVG more than Essien. How many games have we had this season where we could take risks and not start our best players especially at CM? Our performances as team are still not "stable" enough for us to take chances on young players. That's why Kalas, who was promised at least 15 starts by Jose in preseason has only featured for 2 minutes so far.

You're contradicting yourself. Our performances are not stable enough to take chances on young players but yet Mourinho started Van Ginkel in the first game at home against basel. And, let's avoid fixing up the facts. Kalas was injured for much of the first part of the season. That has to be taken into consideration. If Mourinho promised Kalas starts then most likely Kalas would have seen some game time if it weren't for the injury that set him back in fitness.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

You're contradicting yourself. Our performances are not stable enough to take chances on young players but yet Mourinho started Van Ginkel in the first game at home against basel. And, let's avoid fixing up the facts. Kalas was injured for much of the first part of the season. That has to be taken into consideration. If Mourinho promised Kalas starts then most likely Kalas would have seen some game time if it weren't for the injury that set him back in fitness.

Why would that be contradicting? I'm saying that MVG is better than Essien and that's why he got more games before he was injured. Marco has had two full seasons at one of the best teams in Netherlands, he is miles ahead of Nathanial in terms of development and experience. You can't compare the two. If Jose or the club thought that Chalobah was as good as Marco, he would have stayed and played instead of going out on loan to the championship, in fact if he was that good already we wouldn't have had to buy Marco.

Luckily, Nathanial is still 19 and has all the time in the world to develop into a great player. He just needs game-time to develop which is why the club will almost certainly find him another loan in January.

And as for Kalas, he's been back from injury for almost two months and he hasn't even made the bench when recently we had no CBs there due to Luiz's injury. Jose, or any other manager in the world, simply won't risk it when the team is under pressure for results.

[The only place to be 11,313]

The lack of patience some show with young players is astounding to me. I simply don't understand these types of fans.

Essien made a massive cock-up yet the supporters in the ground didn't get on his back. They encouraged him, they cheered him and put the proverbial arm around his shoulder. Why this wouldn't be the same for young players I don't know and I know every Chelsea supporter worth their salt would love to see youngsters being brought through.

We just can't allow him the time and patience of putting up with mistakes and sub-par performances

I guarantee not a single Chelsea supporter agrees with this. All players make mistakes, and Chelsea supporters have ALWAYS supported youngsters. We have a fine tradition of young players coming through in fact.

I try my best to not engage with you Choulo but when you're so amazingly wrong, I have to interject.

[dee25 1,044]

Why would that be contradicting? I'm saying that MVG is better than Essien and that's why he got more games before he was injured. Marco has had two full seasons at one of the best teams in Netherlands, he is miles ahead of Nathanial in terms of development and experience. You can't compare the two. If Jose or the club thought that Chalobah was as good as Marco, he would have stayed and played instead of going out on loan to the championship, in fact if he was that good already we wouldn't have had to buy Marco.

Luckily, Nathanial is still 19 and has all the time in the world to develop into a great player. He just needs game-time to develop which is why the club will almost certainly find him another loan in January.

And as for Kalas, he's been back from injury for almost two months and he hasn't even made the bench when recently we had no CBs there due to Luiz's injury. Jose, or any other manager in the world, simply won't risk it when the team is under pressure for results.

lol so now suddenly Marco is being described as an experienced youth with two seasons at one of the best teams in Netherlands? I think you're revisioning things to suit your agenda because from what I've seen you certainly didn't think so highly of Van Ginkel a few months ago. In fact you claimed that McEachran was even better than him. Also I simply don't get your point about Kalas nor do I think you do either. Kalas completed two seasons in the same team Van Ginkel played for. There's really no difference between the both of them in terms of development.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

hat’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.

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

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.

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.

My point is that you original post was a all wrong. You claimed that all these players were struggling and got shots and succeeded and none of them were struggling (and all of them had more experience than Chalobah and all of them got shots for worse teams than Chelsea). Chalobah is undeniably struggling right now. He didn't struggle last year but that's not the point you were making. (Although that point is also incorrect.)

I am so sick of youth fetishism. Chalobah has never played a game at a top level. Forget about being inexperienced, he has zero experience. He can't get into a side that's not in the top few hundred sides in the world and you want him to play regularly for a top-10 side? He is out of game shape and out of form. His attitude and effort have been poor. Hell, let's give him a shot! Why? Because he's young and that in itself seems to somehow be a virtue. it isn't. . And underrating youth pretty much never happens among fans. I've basically never seen someone write off young players completely whereas I constantly see people thinking young players are about 500% better than they actually are. I see confirmation bias with young players to an insane degree (someone called Van Ginkel the best defensive player he'd ever seen in this forum. Passes that veteran players make all the time get praised if they are made by someone younger, good games are turned into excellent performances simply because the player is young, forums are filled with people drooling over 17 YOs and comparing them to current superstars even though a fraction of them will ever be any good.)

I wanted Lukaku to go because he needs more playing time and because he needs to evolve his game. We were keeping Torres and Ba and bought Eto'o and teams only ever use 2 strikers with any regularity. Demba Ba despite injuries, suspensions, and Mourinho using a surprising number of two-attacker sets has started only 3 games in all competitions and has scored 2 goals. Lukaku has played 9 games and scored 8. HLukaku maybe could have done that but he wouldn't have developed as well because he wouldn't be getting game time.Chelsea is better off with Lukaku playing regularly. . If he were at Chelsea, he would have been sitting on the bench, playing in League Cup games when we had an injury.He needs to improve his game and wouldn't do so not playing. And no, I don't like Lukaku is a very good fit for our system right now which relies on strikers to link up and be (well-rounded) which is a weak aspect of Lukaku's game. Next year, I assume we will be rid of Ba and Eto'o and I'll be happy to see him back here. If Chalobah had had a successful loan spell at a Premier League club, he would sure as hell be welcomed into the club right now but the gap between being successful in the Premier League and struggling in the Championship is enormous. And yes, players need to prove themselves at a top level before being penciled in for regular playing time on a side like Chelsea. that's just the way top teams work.

@The only place to be. People keep mentioning Pogba because he is the exception. For every Pogba, there are about a million players than don't pan out. You want to give all the young players chances, you're going to be a mid-table side at best. I am all for giving youth spots on our team. I thought the Willian signing blocking De Bruyne was wasteful, I was happy to see Van Ginkel getting some minutes, etc..but you have to use young players that are ready to make the jump. Van Ginkel was playing well in Holland which is a vastly better league than the Championship. He even got capped by a solid Holland side. Not all young players are at the same level and Chalobah is not at the stage of development yet where he is ready to play in the premier League.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Hell, let's give him a shot! Why? Because he's young and that in itself seems to somehow be a virtue. it isn't. . And underrating youth pretty much never happens among fans. I've basically never seen someone write off young players completely whereas I const

No. Because he's good.

No-one is calling for Charley Musonda to be given a chance. It's not just about us wanting any old young player to come in, otherwise the logical call would probably be Josh. The reason a lot of people want Nat to be given a chance is because he's a good player. I don't see you talking too much about what he needs to develop, just that he's at some early stage of development. Physically he's always held his own, technically he's fantastic and he also shows good positional awareness, so what exactly do you fear him doing wrong if he was actually given a shot in the team?

Pogba may have been the exception - what about Nat makes you think he isn't another exception? When I saw him play against Pogba at the Bridge, they were the two exceptional players on the pitch.

Maybe you're right - maybe young players have to prove themselves at the highest level before we can take a risk on them. But how fucking boring that world is. How unadventurous and dull. Why every fan who gives a fuck about the romance of football isn't screaming at the top of their voices for young players with exceptional talent to be given a chance I don't know.

But then I'm not sure why so many people who wander into Stamford Bridge on matchdays (apparently by accident) aren't screaming at the top of their voices.

[The Skipper 20,609]

What I find pretty mind boggling is the fact that people can't even fathom Nat taking over Essien's spot in the squad? He's obviously good enough to do so, taking away youth and the supposed experience Michael offers (look what experience did against Southampton).

[Tomo 21,751]

The lack of patience some show with young players is astounding to me.

In general i think it's the opposite, especially if the young player was an academy product.

I remember one match McEachran played under Carlo (i think it was Zilina at home but don't hold me to it) he messed up a simple pass and the fans around me applauded and were like 'unlucky lad', Malouda did the same minutes later and was called every name under the sun.

If their is one type of player fans will be patient with (in my experience) no matter what, it's players from our academy, my mate still harbored hopes for Conor Clifford to be our next midfield captain general until the moment he got released early this year.

[herpthederp 122]

Scored against Millwall tonight.

[We Hate Scouse 10,326]

Apart from the goal he had a really poor game apparently

[Bosnian Blue 2,471]

In general i think it's the opposite, especially if the young player was an academy product.

I remember one match McEachran played under Carlo (i think it was Zilina at home but don't hold me to it) he messed up a simple pass and the fans around me applauded and were like 'unlucky lad', Malouda did the same minutes later and was called every name under the sun.

If their is one type of player fans will be patient with (in my experience) no matter what, it's players from our academy, my mate still harbored hopes for Conor Clifford to be our next midfield captain general until the moment he got released early this year.

And thats the way it should always be.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Apart from the goal he had a really poor game apparently

I saw one of his games this season. I don't know if it is lack of motivation or if he's unhappy at forest or what, but his work-rate was just bad. You'll have a hard time winning over the fans if you don't work hard.

[OneMoSalah 8,886]

Scored but his loan spell so far has been pretty poor from what I've seen. Looks totally different to the player who was at Watford last year...