Nathaniel Chalobah

[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 7,249]

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.

[The Skipper 20,593]

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 2,350]

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 2,350]

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.