Nathaniel Chalobah

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

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).

But why???? What benefit is there bringing back Chalobah so he can play in 5 games in the season? Is it really so important to have Chalobah on the team that you're willing to stunt his development? Even if he were ready, and he's clearly not, young players need game time. What is clear is that he needs more development time. Bringing him back to Chelsea is not good for Chelsea, it's not good for Chalobah. So why do it? So fans can get to salivate over a player's potential in League Cup games? It's pointless.

@Tomo- This is exactly it. It's not just the overrating of potential, it's the overrating of their actual play. Any game that any young, inexperienced player plays that is even half decent will get over-praised to the skies. If a veteran player had the same game, people would be talking about what players we could splash 40M pounds on to replace them.

[Reddish-Blue 2,495]

But why???? What benefit is there bringing back Chalobah so he can play in 5 games in the season? Is it really so important to have Chalobah on the team that you're willing to stunt his development? Even if he were ready, and he's clearly not, young players need game time. What is clear is that he needs more development time. Bringing him back to Chelsea is not good for Chelsea, it's not good for Chalobah. So why do it? So fans can get to salivate over a player's potential in League Cup games? It's pointless.

@Tomo- This is exactly it. It's not just the overrating of potential, it's the overrating of their actual play. Any game that any young, inexperienced player plays that is even half decent will get over-praised to the skies. If a veteran player had the same game, people would be talking about what players we could splash 40M pounds on to replace them.

Over-praised? Thats because fans are generally delighted to see a youngster get his first taste of top-level football

As for the veteran player, he is expected to set the standard by putting in a solid performance.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Over-praised? Thats because fans are generally delighted to see a youngster get his first taste of top-level football

As for the veteran player, he is expected to set the standard by putting in a solid performance.

It doesn't matter one bit. A performance is a performance. We're not a support system to give confidence to young people. The object of our club is not to to develop young talent. We're trying to win trophies. Players should be praised based on what they do, not on how old they are or how long they've been with Chelsea. I'm not talking about fans booing a young player when they make a mistake (I don't believe supporters should boo their own players almost no matter what), we should always be supportive of our players and it is nice to see a young player play well but I'm talking about what Tomo was talking about. The absurd overrating of performances by young players and underrating the performances by veterans.

[The only place to be 11,313]

It doesn't matter one bit. A performance is a performance. We're not a support system to give confidence to young people.

Um, actually that's exactly what football supporters are. They feed off our energy and that spurs them on.

The object of our club is not to to develop young talent.

It's one of the objectives.

Anyway, you've said that Nat isn't ready or developed enough but you avoid specifics. I'm not sure why this is. Having watched him play many, many times he has that one thing that top quality players of any age always have - time on the ball. He's athletic, he's a great passer, he's disciplined and he gets the odd goal. What's missing?

[Special Juan 28,132]

What's missing?

We didn't pay 30M for him

[remains of the day 564]

My point is that you original post was a all wrong

So you’ve mentioned this word – ‘wrong’ a couple of times now. Everything I said is wrong, my examples are wrong, my descriptions were wrong, everything is wrong. Yet the only evidence you can give me as to why these things are supposedly “wrong”…. is one Tony Pulis quote where he only praised the potential of a young Begovic.

You then go on to say how Barkley didn’t struggle because according to you he scored 4 goals in 12 appearances (it was 13). You gave absolutely no details and didn't specify that when Barkley scored 4 goals, he was actually at Sheffield Wednesday and he was there longer than the one-month spell you claimed. After a good spell at sheff wed, he was then sent to a bigger challenge at Leeds; this was for an initial one-month loan spell that was going to be extended if he managed to impress. He didn’t impress, he managed 3 starts and 1 sub appearance. He couldn’t get into that Leeds side and he was sent back to Everton. But according to you, he didn’t ‘struggle’ and I'm just subscribing to confirmatory bias. Got it.

You then make the bizarre point that "and all of them had more experience than Chalobah" – so now not only did Begovic & Barkley not struggle in their last loan spells (which they did) but (according to you) they were a lot more experienced than Chalobah was before they got a shot at their parent clubs? Keep in mind that Barkley & Begovic made a combined total of 10 apps in their last loan spell before they returned to their parent club and keep in mind that Nathaniel had a more successful loan spell in the championship last season than Barkley did. Yet, somehow, Barkley was more experienced than Nat when he returned to Everton? Got it.

Your point that these are only a handful of examples and ones that are only relevant to mid-table sides is actually an excellent point and one of the few points you raised with some merit. Although there are many more examples across Europe of young players who didn’t exactly set the world alight during their loan spells only to go on to impress either at their parent club or when they were eventually sold to another club. For ‘fear’ of being called ‘wrong’ again and being accused of displaying confirmation bias, it’s best I just keep those examples to myself.

I'm sticking to my main point that loans can't be used to predict whether a youngster will be successful when he returns to his parent club. You haven't provided anything to show the contrary. If your point is that these players didn't immediately succeed when they returned, fair enough....although I never once said they were able to instantly do well upon returning nor am I expecting Nat to come back in Jan and suddenly start putting in top class performances. From what I've seen of Nat at Forest, he just looks like he can't be arsed. I work with young athletes and I'm convinced that him coming back in Jan, and making a few appearances in the first team will go a long way towards preparing him for next season than risking another championship loan move that may or may not work out.

Your point that Nat "can't get into a side that's not in the top few hundred sides in the world" so how can I then expect him to "play regularly for a top-10 side" - I think that's myopism. You're looking at his performances this season in isolation. He's the same player that not only got into a “top few hundred side in the world” as you call it, last season but played an important role for that side. If we're going draw meaning into Nat's performances in the championship, why then focus & read more into his poor performances so far at forest than his good performances with Watford. Isn't that confirmation bias?

Regarding this notion that “passes that veteran players make all the time get praised if they are made by someone younger” - so your response to that is to basically lean to the other extreme to the point that we give very little recognition of youngster’s talent? Why is being overly optimistic about youth any worse than being overly pessimistic? And don’t think for a second that somehow your view on this matter is representative of a balanced, biased- free perspective. It is not. You have a problem with people lavishing praises onto youngsters yet you yourself don’t see any problem with being blatantly over-critical of youth. Yet you have temerity to call confirmation bias. Please, don’t make me laugh. You only see confirmatory bias when it suits your own skewed & blinkered view of things, which becomes a confirmation bias in itself.

I think most rational people will agree that yes, far too often, people tend to blow everything that youngsters do way out of proportion. But so what? That's football culture. We had to listen to non-stop media love fest over a Utd teenager because he scored two goals in one game, something that many players do all the time. But does that then mean that we should now refrain from praising youth when they exhibit talented performances that exceeds that of their peers? Just because some, over glorify youngsters, we shouldn’t then recognize their talent or potential and encourage them even when their performances has been subpar?

As for your comment that ‘underrating youth never happens among fans” – to use the term you so generously throw around - that’s wrong. Many, such as yourself, somehow think it's your duty to "right the wrongs" and banish the evils of what you call youth fetishism; So if someone hypes up a youth - you over criticize the youth, if someone praises a pass a youth made, you then bring up how 10 passes weren't perfectly executed; what you end up accomplishing is not objectivism of any sense but hypersensitive critic. See Choulo's comment below regarding Marco, after two preseason games.

Van Ginkel's passing has been terrible in both games. Fist he's very slow at it and often needs an extra touch or two before releasing the ball. Second, his technique is awful, meaning even when he does make the pass it is often either behind the player or difficult for him to control; meaning the receiver often has to take an extra touch which also slows down the play. Moreover, his vision is bad; he seems only to be able to make the 'obvious' pass and when a defender blocks that angle he looks unsure what to do and often goes back to defense. And finally, he seems to struggle with passes more than 15-20 meters away and often misplaces them.

@Choulo19 really don’t mean to single you out! To be fair to Choulo he did warm up to Van Ginkel afterwards.

But my point is, just because some tend to glorify youth and be too eager to want them to play in the first team, doesn't legitimize being overly critical of youth talent and being overly pessimistic and dismissive about their chances of playing for a top club and you, @TorontoChelsea, seem to be prescribing to that notion.

"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" - except top teams in PL have already given apps to less experienced and proven youngsters than Nathaniel? Yes, yes...I know."I'm wrong", right?

[CHOULO19 24,332]

@Choulo19 really don’t mean to single you out! To be fair to Choulo he did warm up to Van Ginkel afterwards.

But my point is, just because some tend to glorify youth and be too eager to want them to play in the first team, doesn't legitimize being overly critical of youth talent and being overly pessimistic and dismissive about their chances of playing for a top club and you, @TorontoChelsea, seem to be prescribing to that notion.

"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" - except top teams in PL have already given apps to less experienced and proven youngsters than Nathaniel? Yes, yes...I know."I'm wrong", right?

I don't get what exactly is your point by taking that post out of context? You didn't even quote the whole post:

Van Ginkel's passing has been terrible in both games. Fist he's very slow at it and often needs an extra touch or two before releasing the ball. Second, his technique is awful, meaning even when he does make the pass it is often either behind the player or difficult for him to control; meaning the receiver often has to take an extra touch which also slows down the play. Moreover, his vision is bad; he seems only to be able to make the 'obvious' pass and when a defender blocks that angle he looks unsure what to do and often goes back to defense. And finally, he seems to struggle with passes more than 15-20 meters away and often misplaces them.

It's still way too early and I'm not passing judgement, but I have not yet seen how Van Ginkel is good at everything else.

I was talking about his first two games in preseason where he did have bad games and did the things I said. I had rarely seen him with Vitesse and was giving my opinion on those two games. Starting from the third game he picked up his passing game which was way off in the first two and I said so:

Sooo much better today. His movement was excellent and his passing was good. Maybe because 4-3-3 feels more natural to him? Or maybe because he's starting to gel more with the team? I don't know. I just hope to see more of this kind of performances. :cfc:

In any case Marco is well ahead of Nathanial in terms of ability and development. And to answer the last point you made in that post, tell me, what TOP PL team has has made a young player a regular in their team before a PL loan or at least a few champion ship loans?

[The only place to be 11,313]

In any case Marco is well ahead of Nathanial in terms of ability and development.

I had rarely seen him with Vitesse

Must've made a real impression in his games for Chelsea then.

Can you pick a defining moment from his 97 minutes of match time that made you realise he's 'well ahead of Nat'?

[hjperdeath 2,226]

Have to say it though, have followed Vitesse quite well last season and a bit of Watford too, and Marco is head and shoulders above Chalobah. No comparison, Chalobah still needs time. Marco wasn't loaned out for that reason. Don't know what the debate is about, but just making a point about who is more developed.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Have to say it though, have followed Vitesse quite well last season and a bit of Watford too, and Marco is head and shoulders above Chalobah. No comparison, Chalobah still needs time. Marco wasn't loaned out for that reason. Don't know what the debate is about, but just making a point about who is more developed.

I disagree having watched both teams and spoken to fans of both teams, as well as people at this club. To say he's 'head and shoulders' above Nat is very unfair to Nat and seems a little 'boot-licky' (not for the first time either).

They're different players and both have a lot of quality, but on the ball I still think Nat is a far more composed presence. Marco can look a little skittish at times and even in his limited game time for us he looked uneasy and nervous. It's a shame he didn't get a chance to bed in because he would've improved in my view, but Nat has never really had that until this season. He's always looked eminently comfortable in any situation and I don't see a single reason why this wouldn't be the same at this club.

People talk about him needing time to develop but refuse to go into specifics. It's not like he's a Josh who needs to add workrate and physicality to his game, and it's not like he's a Todd Kane who needs to add a bit of quality on the ball. Mentally he's always been a cut above those around him and he emerged as a leader at Watford last season (which is astounding for an 18 year old).

To say he isn't 'developed' enough is such a cop out.

[hjperdeath 2,226]

I disagree having watched both teams and spoken to fans of both teams, as well as people at this club. To say he's 'head and shoulders' above Nat is very unfair to Nat and seems a little 'boot-licky' (not for the first time either).

They're different players and both have a lot of quality, but on the ball I still think Nat is a far more composed presence. Marco can look a little skittish at times and even in his limited game time for us he looked uneasy and nervous. It's a shame he didn't get a chance to bed in because he would've improved in my view, but Nat has never really had that until this season. He's always looked eminently comfortable in any situation and I don't see a single reason why this wouldn't be the same at this club.

People talk about him needing time to develop but refuse to go into specifics. It's not like he's a Josh who needs to add workrate and physicality to his game, and it's not like he's a Todd Kane who needs to add a bit of quality on the ball. Mentally he's always been a cut above those around him and he emerged as a leader at Watford last season (which is astounding for an 18 year old).

To say he isn't 'developed' enough is such a cop out.

i disagree on the fact that Marco isn't composed. One can't judge him on the time he has played here, which is so little. I'm not saying anything about whether Chalobah can fit in here at Chels or not. That's another debate, not really concerned about it. as long as I'm 'boot licky' and not a part-time 'provoke specialist' .

In a whole Marco when it comes to tactical aptitude is better than Chalobah has been. Able to fit in with different midfield partners and different system's that the assistant manager seems to employ.

Once again, I'm only talking about right now, and for me Marco at Vitesse has been much better than Chalobah at wherever he has been on loan. That doesn't mean either of them can't develop into something better in the future. For all fate knows, Chalobah could end up much better than Marco. But as of now, my opinion is very different.

And didn't say he isn't developed enough. But when you compare the development between the two, taking various factors such as fitness, work-rate, tactical aptitude (which is one of the biggest reasons), technical ability etc, is better than what Nat possesses. For now.

[The only place to be 11,313]

And didn't say he isn't developed enough. But when you compare the development between the two, taking various factors such as fitness, work-rate, tactical aptitude (which is one of the biggest reasons), technical ability etc, is better than what Nat possesses. For now.

I've seen Nat change roles in matches and do them equally well. At Watford he would go from a purely holding midfielder to a box-to-box presence and be equally effective, so I've never had cause to question his tactical aptitude. Technically I'd actually say that Nat is vastly underrated. His passing ability is very good, his close control excellent and I've even seen him do a job as a number 10 albeit in the youth ranks. His levels of fitness were prodigious in the youth-ranks as well, and he coped well in his first full season when he was playing virtually every match, so again I'm not entirely sure what you're basing these criticisms on.

i disagree on the fact that Marco isn't composed. One can't judge him on the time he has played here, which is so little. I'm not saying anything about whether Chalobah can fit in here at Chels or not. That's another debate, not really concerned about it. as long as I'm 'boot licky' and not a part-time 'provoke specialist' .

If you're comfortable with that role then that's fine - lord knows your friend needs help fighting his battles. Being a provocateur seems eminently more entertaining than licking shit to me.

In a whole Marco when it comes to tactical aptitude is better than Chalobah has been. Able to fit in with different midfield partners and different system's that the assistant manager seems to employ.

Think I've already addressed this. Another point is that Nat is equally comfortable in defence and coming from that position probably has a different appreciation for the work he does in midfield. We're talking about two players who could form a formidable and complimentary partnership in years to come with Nat as our Javi Martinez and Marco as our Bastien.

Once again, I'm only talking about right now, and for me Marco at Vitesse has been much better than Chalobah at wherever he has been on loan.

Watford - it's a small place on the outskirts of Northern England.

[hjperdeath 2,226]

I've seen Nat change roles in matches and do them equally well. At Watford he would go from a purely holding midfielder to a box-to-box presence and be equally effective, so I've never had cause to question his tactical aptitude. Technically I'd actually say that Nat is vastly underrated. His passing ability is very good, his close control excellent and I've even seen him do a job as a number 10 albeit in the youth ranks. His levels of fitness were prodigious in the youth-ranks as well, and he coped well in his first full season when he was playing virtually every match, so again I'm not entirely sure what you're basing these criticisms on.

Changing roles isn't tactical aptitude. That's called versatility. A whole different term. Vittese went from experiment with a false 9, to using wing-backs, to causing central overloads in defensive transitions. All of which had a direct effect on the two midfielders. But when it comes to versatility, Marco has played as a holding, very little as a defensive and also as a DLP ( the phase in which he grabbed a few goals and got compared to Gerrard and Lampard). Watford haven't shuffled around their system, mostly because Zola still wasn't sure throughout the campaign about how he wanted his players to perform. Midway through, he was decided.

The point is tactical aptitude is different to playing in different zones of the field.

Once again. Completely missing my point. I'm not saying Nat's technical ability sucks, my point is Marco's is better. Just cause I say Messi is better than Ronaldo at lobbing the ball, doesn't mean Ronaldo is jackshit at lobbing. Not once have I criticized Nat. Just cause I say Falcao is better than Cavani, doesn't mean I'm criticising Cavani. Just means that Falcao is better than Cavani at what he does.

If you're comfortable with that role then that's fine - lord knows your friend needs help fighting his battles. Being a provocateur seems eminently more entertaining than licking shit to me.

Ah yes I'm the one entertaining the members of the forum here ! Fine by me. :tophat:

Think I've already addressed this. Another point is that Nat is equally comfortable in defence and coming from that position probably has a different appreciation for the work he does in midfield. We're talking about two players who could form a formidable and complimentary partnership in years to come with Nat as our Javi Martinez and Marco as our Bastien.

This I agree. Only reason I don't want us to get another player in the middle. Promote Nat next season, and use him Marco and Rami next season. Mikel and Lampard to come in when needed.

Watford - it's a small place on the outskirts of Northern England.

Come on mate, we all know its a town. Calling it a small place isn't that polite. Plus more like north-west.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Ah yes I'm the one entertaining the members of the forum here ! Fine by me. :tophat:

Actually I was suggesting you were sucking up to a particular member, and not for the first time. But if that's what you wanna do then I won't stop you.

Changing roles isn't tactical aptitude. That's called versatility. A whole different term.

If you want tactical aptitude then look at what Nat's been through at our academy, going from different play styles to different formations. Personally I've never seen any cause for concern with his 'tactical aptitude' or his 'versatility'. In fact he's always been commended for his 'footballing intelligence' and mental application to the game. It's what marked him out from others at most stages of his development.

Either way I think nitpicking between Nat and Marco's ability is just that. It's frivolous and hardly complimentary to a player who is roughly two years Nat's senior.

[hjperdeath 2,226]

Actually I was suggesting you were sucking up to a particular member, and not for the first time. But if that's what you wanna do then I won't stop you.

And you with the frequent complaining. but hey if that's what you wanna do then I won't stop you.

If you want tactical aptitude then look at what Nat's been through at our academy, going from different play styles to different formations. Personally I've never seen any cause for concern with his 'tactical aptitude' or his 'versatility'. In fact he's always been commended for his 'footballing intelligence' and mental application to the game. It's what marked him out from others at most stages of his development. Either way I think nitpicking between Nat and Marco's ability is just that. It's frivolous and hardly complimentary to a player who is roughly two years Nat's senior.

In a sense true. But Adi Viveash has stuck to a very stringent system. Unlike other clubs where the main team and the sub divisions play exactly the same type of football, Chelsea doesn't. Once again you are confusing relative terms. I've never said that Nat has 0 tactical aptitude. He is been brilliant in his own way. In comparison with Marco, for me, he falls just a lil short.

Not really. Age is merely a number in the sense that ability wise a younger player could have much better ability than a player older to him.