https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11706/12671043/marc-guehi-exclusive-interview-crystal-palace-defender-on-chelsea-hurt-premier-league-adaptation-and-england
Chelsea have very very successfully made their academy into a key revenue stream.
Reading your post it seems that maybe the emphasis is too much on making money and spending on 'stars' resulting in the in-house talent being overlooked.
Fans love a home grown player. They only time CFC have really promoted youth since Terry was when the transfer ban forced Lampard to play some kids.
The pressure is on at the top so it is difficult to throw in kids and expect no drop off in team performance. CFC have also had, historically, a fair high turnover of managers, so turning to the academy when their job is on the line and money is there to spend is probably a natural reaction for most coaches who may see their tenure as being only 2-3 years
I think he had a choice, he wanted first team football and chose that. He could of followed the route of others and been in a position to take his chance now but chose to leave. We have a lot of prising youngsters, some will work out and some won't, what we don't have is a crystal ball. Hindsight is wonderful but not always useful.
The transfer ban in itself isn't the silver bullet. You still have to have staff who want to use the young players.
Lampard had a choice of playing experienced heads like Giroud, Pedro, Barkley etc over the likes of Tammy, James, Mount, Tomori.
The transfer ban never forced Lampard to prioritise the youth over them, let's put that misguided (long-running) notion to bed.
The lack of youth integration are absolutely inherent manager problems and little to do with the transfer ban.
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 41 minutes ago
The transfer ban in itself isn't the silver bullet. You still have to have staff who want to use the young players.
Lampard had a choice of playing experienced heads like Giroud, Pedro, Barkley etc over the likes of Tammy, James, Mount, Tomori.
The transfer ban never forced Lampard to prioritise the youth over them, let's put that misguided (long-running) notion to bed.
The lack of youth integration are absolutely inherent manager problems and little to do with the transfer ban.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i agree to an extent...but when a new manager has a transfer ban they have a bit of a free hit. Lampard was probably more inclined to play youth than say Conte or Tuchel but if he had £150m to spend do you think he'd be declining and saying, no thanks i'll play these 19 year olds?
So a combination of both IMO. A manager more inclined to integrate youth but also being forced to to a degree as new players could not be added to the squad in any event.
comment by JFDI (U1657)
I think he had a choice, he wanted first team football and chose that. He could of followed the route of others and been in a position to take his chance now but chose to leave. We have a lot of prising youngsters, some will work out and some won't, what we don't have is a crystal ball. Hindsight is wonderful but not always useful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only choice provided to him was a loan (option to buy), Tuchel had no intention of keeping Guehi around the first-team.
Guehi rightly rejected second loan spell, knows his worth. He was part of the sale, which funded the signing of Lukaku.
The message sent out from the manager is important, Tuchel never assured him that there is path to play after a quite frankly outstanding loan spell (which eclipsed that even of Tomori' at Derby).
If this was done correctly, Guehi would be here now.
No hindsight required to know & understand top class on the books, just some due diligience, fairness and willingness to integrate.
Videos, highlights, scouting reports are out there and Tuchel would have the best resources available.
To not extensively know of a players qualities at the club that you are managing is a serious case of negligence. Basic lack of due diligence.
Especially considering he would have presumably used the same resources to identify Fofana as a top CB target.
Lampard had a choice of playing experienced heads like Giroud, Pedro, Barkley etc over the likes of Tammy, James, Mount, Tomori.
The transfer ban never forced Lampard to prioritise the youth over them, let's put that misguided (long-running) notion to bed.
----------------------------------------------------------
It's easy to make any choice when you have little to lose. Why do you think Hiddink gave Kenedy & Traore plenty of minutes in 2016? Season was already dead & he wasn't gunna stay, zero risk.
The transfer ban wasn't the only free hit for Lampard, the entire job was. I'm sure he'd have loved to stay as long as possible, but however it went taking the job was, at worst, going to stagnate his managerial career - not damage it. Comparing Lampard to other managers of ours who's reputations would be affected by the outcome of how they fared with us is unfair.
You should be hoping Boehly backs Tuchel, gives him patience & trust, as much as possible. Because if he does, managers might look at us in a different light in the future (believe they can take more risks) & you might get what you ultimately want one day.
Hiddink' tenure is completely irrelevant to Frank', Hiddink was interim until the end of the season...there is no correlation.
Lampard knew when he took the job that he'd be immediately under pressure to get results in year 1 and still chose to stick with the academy lot because he knew that he could trust them to achieve the aim of top 4. Paid-off.
If we were way off the pace and Lampard had lost the dressing, there's no doubt Lampard would have been fired by Roman.
Integrating youth and getting results isn't mutually exclusive. That's been more than proven over the past couple of years, shown they can be relied-on.
Big part of CL success.
I know, but it's an example of how lack of risk gives you freedom to take chances (which playing untested youth always is). If Hiddink was our manager at the start of that season, or there was a possibility he'd stay on, the chances of him doing that shrinks.
You even see it in Lampard's tenure. It started out very youth heavy (or outcast heavy I'd say), and gradually reached a mean of picking in-form players whoever they were - as being in-form alleviates all risk really (from personal criticism anyway). But being who he was in our job at that time gave him freedom to do that.
Lemme put it this way. If he becomes our manager again one day after firmly establishing himself as a top, sought after coach, it'll be very interesting to see if he has the same mindset.
What we don't see is the day in day out attitude of any given player...as well as how he actually performs/interacts in training...not what you think he can do from Utube.
Also the two new recruits we bought in Cucurella & Kulibaly were excellent at the weekend...never a guarantee though as we saw with Pulisic Ziyech & Werner...
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 9 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
I think he had a choice, he wanted first team football and chose that. He could of followed the route of others and been in a position to take his chance now but chose to leave. We have a lot of prising youngsters, some will work out and some won't, what we don't have is a crystal ball. Hindsight is wonderful but not always useful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only choice provided to him was a loan (option to buy), Tuchel had no intention of keeping Guehi around the first-team.
Guehi rightly rejected second loan spell, knows his worth. He was part of the sale, which funded the signing of Lukaku.
The message sent out from the manager is important, Tuchel never assured him that there is path to play after a quite frankly outstanding loan spell (which eclipsed that even of Tomori' at Derby).
If this was done correctly, Guehi would be here now.
No hindsight required to know & understand top class on the books, just some due diligience, fairness and willingness to integrate.
Videos, highlights, scouting reports are out there and Tuchel would have the best resources available.
To not extensively know of a players qualities at the club that you are managing is a serious case of negligence. Basic lack of due diligence.
Especially considering he would have presumably used the same resources to identify Fofana as a top CB target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was still a choice, one that many have taken over the years, he chose not to as others have. It happens, I still remember feeling disappointed when Muzzy Izzet went to Leicester, I thought he decided to leave too soon. Work out fine for JT though.
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
comment by JFDI (U1657)
I think he had a choice, he wanted first team football and chose that. He could of followed the route of others and been in a position to take his chance now but chose to leave. We have a lot of prising youngsters, some will work out and some won't, what we don't have is a crystal ball. Hindsight is wonderful but not always useful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only choice provided to him was a loan (option to buy), Tuchel had no intention of keeping Guehi around the first-team.
Guehi rightly rejected second loan spell, knows his worth. He was part of the sale, which funded the signing of Lukaku.
The message sent out from the manager is important, Tuchel never assured him that there is path to play after a quite frankly outstanding loan spell (which eclipsed that even of Tomori' at Derby).
If this was done correctly, Guehi would be here now.
No hindsight required to know & understand top class on the books, just some due diligience, fairness and willingness to integrate.
Videos, highlights, scouting reports are out there and Tuchel would have the best resources available.
To not extensively know of a players qualities at the club that you are managing is a serious case of negligence. Basic lack of due diligence.
Especially considering he would have presumably used the same resources to identify Fofana as a top CB target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was still a choice, one that many have taken over the years, he chose not to as others have. It happens, I still remember feeling disappointed when Muzzy Izzet went to Leicester, I thought he decided to leave too soon. Work out fine for JT though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is Tuchel showed no signs of confidence in Guehi to make him believe he had a shot in the first-team (I'd wager he didnt even know who Guehi was, which is the worst part).
At the time of his departure, bearing in mind...Guehi was final year of contract, had to commit long-term before second loan.
Why would he commit on those terms knowing that he doesn't have a realistic chance of breaking through under Tuchel?
Permanent departure a no-brainer.
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 3 hours, 58 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
comment by JFDI (U1657)
I think he had a choice, he wanted first team football and chose that. He could of followed the route of others and been in a position to take his chance now but chose to leave. We have a lot of prising youngsters, some will work out and some won't, what we don't have is a crystal ball. Hindsight is wonderful but not always useful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only choice provided to him was a loan (option to buy), Tuchel had no intention of keeping Guehi around the first-team.
Guehi rightly rejected second loan spell, knows his worth. He was part of the sale, which funded the signing of Lukaku.
The message sent out from the manager is important, Tuchel never assured him that there is path to play after a quite frankly outstanding loan spell (which eclipsed that even of Tomori' at Derby).
If this was done correctly, Guehi would be here now.
No hindsight required to know & understand top class on the books, just some due diligience, fairness and willingness to integrate.
Videos, highlights, scouting reports are out there and Tuchel would have the best resources available.
To not extensively know of a players qualities at the club that you are managing is a serious case of negligence. Basic lack of due diligence.
Especially considering he would have presumably used the same resources to identify Fofana as a top CB target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was still a choice, one that many have taken over the years, he chose not to as others have. It happens, I still remember feeling disappointed when Muzzy Izzet went to Leicester, I thought he decided to leave too soon. Work out fine for JT though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is Tuchel showed no signs of confidence in Guehi to make him believe he had a shot in the first-team (I'd wager he didnt even know who Guehi was, which is the worst part).
At the time of his departure, bearing in mind...Guehi was final year of contract, had to commit long-term before second loan.
Why would he commit on those terms knowing that he doesn't have a realistic chance of breaking through under Tuchel?
Permanent departure a no-brainer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know that?
As for length of contract what do you expect, send them on loan on a short contract and allow them to move on for free?
It's pretty standard for players to extend their contracts before going on loan.
Agree wholeheartedly cmf - the way we've handled the CB situation is a complete shambles in all honesty. Just failure after failure.
Selling Tomori and Guehi despite both Rudi and AC entering the final year of their contracts with zero certainty that they'd re-sign. We effectively lost 4 top CBs (aged 22-28) for the combined price of about £45m.
Now we're "building for the future" yet we've brought in Koulibaly (admittedly an elite CB - very happy to have him here) and re-signed Azpi on a 2 year deal. The combined age of our CBs in the PL opening game was ~100 years.
Tbf, we are trying to somewhat rectify our age issue by buying a young CB in Fofana but at a ridiculously inflated price (~£80m). And you're right - Fofana is a similar level to Guehi and Tomori - though I'd argue they're both better ball-playing CBs than him.
Also, what's going on with Chalobah? Barely got a look in since the start of the year. If we were prioritising our future then he 100% should be starting over Azpi. As it stands, it looks like Chalobah is our 3rd choice CB (after Azpi and James). These years are key for his development and I wouldn't be surprised if he also starts pushing for a move if there's no uptick in his playing time.
I'm very happy we managed to restrict Colwill's move to Brighton to a loan but it remains to be seen whether we'll be able to effectively integrate him in the 23/24 season.
The CM position will be our next ticking timebomb with both Kante and Jorginho entering the final year of their contracts...
So Tuchel gave Chalobah a shot but wouldn’t give Guehi a shot?
No, he clearly wasn’t interested in a fighting for a place so chose to leave, same as Livramento. Either that or he’s worse than Chalobah…
You can complain about the sales of Guehi and Tomori given what happened with Rudiger and Christensen but that’s more on the previous board than Tuchel.
Cmf would happily play lamptey James guehi christensen tomori and some youth team left back and watch us not compete for anything
I tried to visualise CMF.... To be fair to him he talks a good game.... But he's absolutely off his nut
comment by Randomer (U5245)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
So Tuchel gave Chalobah a shot but wouldn’t give Guehi a shot?
No, he clearly wasn’t interested in a fighting for a place so chose to leave, same as Livramento. Either that or he’s worse than Chalobah…
You can complain about the sales of Guehi and Tomori given what happened with Rudiger and Christensen but that’s more on the previous board than Tuchel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not pinning this all on Tuchel. It's a club problem. Though Tuchel isn't faultless either.
comment by minididi (U17584)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Randomer (U5245)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
So Tuchel gave Chalobah a shot but wouldn’t give Guehi a shot?
No, he clearly wasn’t interested in a fighting for a place so chose to leave, same as Livramento. Either that or he’s worse than Chalobah…
You can complain about the sales of Guehi and Tomori given what happened with Rudiger and Christensen but that’s more on the previous board than Tuchel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not pinning this all on Tuchel. It's a club problem. Though Tuchel isn't faultless either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some might call it a problem, for me it's a consequence.
comment by minididi (U17584)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
comment by Randomer (U5245)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
So Tuchel gave Chalobah a shot but wouldn’t give Guehi a shot?
No, he clearly wasn’t interested in a fighting for a place so chose to leave, same as Livramento. Either that or he’s worse than Chalobah…
You can complain about the sales of Guehi and Tomori given what happened with Rudiger and Christensen but that’s more on the previous board than Tuchel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not pinning this all on Tuchel. It's a club problem. Though Tuchel isn't faultless either.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It's not a problem, it's been part of the trade off for instant gratification success under the previous regime, or a consequence as JFDI put it.
The reason our managers haven't been inclined to integrate youth freely, even one's proven to in the past like Tuchel, is because they know there's so little margin for error to keep them off the chopping block. That would be a problem if we weren't getting something back, but 20 trophies in as many years is more than fair compensation.
The great thing is if we ever want to change direction we can instantly, the academy is spitting out PL quality players for fun. Most clubs wouldn't have the option without investing a lot of time & money
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
Cmf would happily play lamptey James guehi christensen tomori and some youth team left back and watch us not compete for anything
--------------------------------------------------------------
True, but we all have our weird biases. I genuinely would've been fine with us being relegated in 2016 just to see us conquer a different challenge.
CMF would've loved it too, cos I can guarantee the academy would've featured prominently in the resurrection
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
Cmf would happily play lamptey James guehi christensen tomori and some youth team left back and watch us not compete for anything
--------------------------------------------------------------
True, but we all have our weird biases. I genuinely would've been fine with us being relegated in 2016 just to see us conquer a different challenge.
CMF would've loved it too, cos I can guarantee the academy would've featured prominently in the resurrection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Been there seen that, not in a hurry to go through it again
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
Cmf would happily play lamptey James guehi christensen tomori and some youth team left back and watch us not compete for anything
--------------------------------------------------------------
True, but we all have our weird biases. I genuinely would've been fine with us being relegated in 2016 just to see us conquer a different challenge.
CMF would've loved it too, cos I can guarantee the academy would've featured prominently in the resurrection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Been there seen that, not in a hurry to go through it again
----------------------------------------------------
Not been there, not seen it, hence curious
Tbf it would've been simulated jeopardy unlike in the past, I'm certain Roman wouldn't have gone anywhere, just built again for scratch. But it would've been a cool recovery story like Juventus.
"Also, what's going on with Chalobah? Barely got a look in since the start of the year. If we were prioritising our future then he 100% should be starting over Azpi. As it stands, it looks like Chalobah is our 3rd choice CB (after Azpi and James). These years are key for his development and I wouldn't be surprised if he also starts pushing for a move if there's no uptick in his playing time."
The moment Fofana (or any other CB is in), Chalobah is out.
No space in matchday squad and no minutes available.
Ramifications of retaining an unfit for purpose Azpi.
It was a good run, Chalobah had a fortunate set of circumstances to breakthrough...
The plan all along was to offload Chalobah (loan or permanent), provided the signing of Kounde went through last summer...that fell through.
Moreover Thiago Silva struggling for fitness at the beginning of last season and the rest coming back late from euros, missing a chunk of pre-season worked in his favour.
Added to the fact Tuchel knew a little about him from his time in France (The minute difference between him & Guehi).
Established quality now finds himself having to suffer the ignomy of playing reserve football this season, which is really not on. Sad, but that is what he has to deal with.
Again isn't due to a lack of fight, it's a lack of trust (and favoritism) which isn't afforded to him.
All happening on Tuchel's watch.
These are the type of players one keeps around, particularly after finding out that he can cut it at the highest level against top-level opponents.
Even as a squad or utility player, academy will always have the mental edge.
Naturally Chalobah' progress should have led him to be the one to replace Azpi permanently, with the upward trajectory shown last season...but as it turns out the manager has other ideas.
Erroneously deciding a player who has no future at the club should be prioritised.
Sign in if you want to comment
Marc Guehi: Leaving Chelsea hurt a lot...
Page 1 of 2
posted on 16/8/22
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11706/12671043/marc-guehi-exclusive-interview-crystal-palace-defender-on-chelsea-hurt-premier-league-adaptation-and-england
posted on 16/8/22
Chelsea have very very successfully made their academy into a key revenue stream.
Reading your post it seems that maybe the emphasis is too much on making money and spending on 'stars' resulting in the in-house talent being overlooked.
Fans love a home grown player. They only time CFC have really promoted youth since Terry was when the transfer ban forced Lampard to play some kids.
The pressure is on at the top so it is difficult to throw in kids and expect no drop off in team performance. CFC have also had, historically, a fair high turnover of managers, so turning to the academy when their job is on the line and money is there to spend is probably a natural reaction for most coaches who may see their tenure as being only 2-3 years
posted on 16/8/22
I think he had a choice, he wanted first team football and chose that. He could of followed the route of others and been in a position to take his chance now but chose to leave. We have a lot of prising youngsters, some will work out and some won't, what we don't have is a crystal ball. Hindsight is wonderful but not always useful.
posted on 16/8/22
The transfer ban in itself isn't the silver bullet. You still have to have staff who want to use the young players.
Lampard had a choice of playing experienced heads like Giroud, Pedro, Barkley etc over the likes of Tammy, James, Mount, Tomori.
The transfer ban never forced Lampard to prioritise the youth over them, let's put that misguided (long-running) notion to bed.
The lack of youth integration are absolutely inherent manager problems and little to do with the transfer ban.
posted on 16/8/22
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 41 minutes ago
The transfer ban in itself isn't the silver bullet. You still have to have staff who want to use the young players.
Lampard had a choice of playing experienced heads like Giroud, Pedro, Barkley etc over the likes of Tammy, James, Mount, Tomori.
The transfer ban never forced Lampard to prioritise the youth over them, let's put that misguided (long-running) notion to bed.
The lack of youth integration are absolutely inherent manager problems and little to do with the transfer ban.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i agree to an extent...but when a new manager has a transfer ban they have a bit of a free hit. Lampard was probably more inclined to play youth than say Conte or Tuchel but if he had £150m to spend do you think he'd be declining and saying, no thanks i'll play these 19 year olds?
So a combination of both IMO. A manager more inclined to integrate youth but also being forced to to a degree as new players could not be added to the squad in any event.
posted on 16/8/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
I think he had a choice, he wanted first team football and chose that. He could of followed the route of others and been in a position to take his chance now but chose to leave. We have a lot of prising youngsters, some will work out and some won't, what we don't have is a crystal ball. Hindsight is wonderful but not always useful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only choice provided to him was a loan (option to buy), Tuchel had no intention of keeping Guehi around the first-team.
Guehi rightly rejected second loan spell, knows his worth. He was part of the sale, which funded the signing of Lukaku.
The message sent out from the manager is important, Tuchel never assured him that there is path to play after a quite frankly outstanding loan spell (which eclipsed that even of Tomori' at Derby).
If this was done correctly, Guehi would be here now.
No hindsight required to know & understand top class on the books, just some due diligience, fairness and willingness to integrate.
Videos, highlights, scouting reports are out there and Tuchel would have the best resources available.
To not extensively know of a players qualities at the club that you are managing is a serious case of negligence. Basic lack of due diligence.
Especially considering he would have presumably used the same resources to identify Fofana as a top CB target.
posted on 16/8/22
Lampard had a choice of playing experienced heads like Giroud, Pedro, Barkley etc over the likes of Tammy, James, Mount, Tomori.
The transfer ban never forced Lampard to prioritise the youth over them, let's put that misguided (long-running) notion to bed.
----------------------------------------------------------
It's easy to make any choice when you have little to lose. Why do you think Hiddink gave Kenedy & Traore plenty of minutes in 2016? Season was already dead & he wasn't gunna stay, zero risk.
The transfer ban wasn't the only free hit for Lampard, the entire job was. I'm sure he'd have loved to stay as long as possible, but however it went taking the job was, at worst, going to stagnate his managerial career - not damage it. Comparing Lampard to other managers of ours who's reputations would be affected by the outcome of how they fared with us is unfair.
You should be hoping Boehly backs Tuchel, gives him patience & trust, as much as possible. Because if he does, managers might look at us in a different light in the future (believe they can take more risks) & you might get what you ultimately want one day.
posted on 17/8/22
Hiddink' tenure is completely irrelevant to Frank', Hiddink was interim until the end of the season...there is no correlation.
Lampard knew when he took the job that he'd be immediately under pressure to get results in year 1 and still chose to stick with the academy lot because he knew that he could trust them to achieve the aim of top 4. Paid-off.
If we were way off the pace and Lampard had lost the dressing, there's no doubt Lampard would have been fired by Roman.
posted on 17/8/22
Integrating youth and getting results isn't mutually exclusive. That's been more than proven over the past couple of years, shown they can be relied-on.
Big part of CL success.
posted on 17/8/22
I know, but it's an example of how lack of risk gives you freedom to take chances (which playing untested youth always is). If Hiddink was our manager at the start of that season, or there was a possibility he'd stay on, the chances of him doing that shrinks.
You even see it in Lampard's tenure. It started out very youth heavy (or outcast heavy I'd say), and gradually reached a mean of picking in-form players whoever they were - as being in-form alleviates all risk really (from personal criticism anyway). But being who he was in our job at that time gave him freedom to do that.
Lemme put it this way. If he becomes our manager again one day after firmly establishing himself as a top, sought after coach, it'll be very interesting to see if he has the same mindset.
posted on 17/8/22
What we don't see is the day in day out attitude of any given player...as well as how he actually performs/interacts in training...not what you think he can do from Utube.
Also the two new recruits we bought in Cucurella & Kulibaly were excellent at the weekend...never a guarantee though as we saw with Pulisic Ziyech & Werner...
posted on 17/8/22
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 9 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
I think he had a choice, he wanted first team football and chose that. He could of followed the route of others and been in a position to take his chance now but chose to leave. We have a lot of prising youngsters, some will work out and some won't, what we don't have is a crystal ball. Hindsight is wonderful but not always useful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only choice provided to him was a loan (option to buy), Tuchel had no intention of keeping Guehi around the first-team.
Guehi rightly rejected second loan spell, knows his worth. He was part of the sale, which funded the signing of Lukaku.
The message sent out from the manager is important, Tuchel never assured him that there is path to play after a quite frankly outstanding loan spell (which eclipsed that even of Tomori' at Derby).
If this was done correctly, Guehi would be here now.
No hindsight required to know & understand top class on the books, just some due diligience, fairness and willingness to integrate.
Videos, highlights, scouting reports are out there and Tuchel would have the best resources available.
To not extensively know of a players qualities at the club that you are managing is a serious case of negligence. Basic lack of due diligence.
Especially considering he would have presumably used the same resources to identify Fofana as a top CB target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was still a choice, one that many have taken over the years, he chose not to as others have. It happens, I still remember feeling disappointed when Muzzy Izzet went to Leicester, I thought he decided to leave too soon. Work out fine for JT though.
posted on 17/8/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
comment by JFDI (U1657)
I think he had a choice, he wanted first team football and chose that. He could of followed the route of others and been in a position to take his chance now but chose to leave. We have a lot of prising youngsters, some will work out and some won't, what we don't have is a crystal ball. Hindsight is wonderful but not always useful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only choice provided to him was a loan (option to buy), Tuchel had no intention of keeping Guehi around the first-team.
Guehi rightly rejected second loan spell, knows his worth. He was part of the sale, which funded the signing of Lukaku.
The message sent out from the manager is important, Tuchel never assured him that there is path to play after a quite frankly outstanding loan spell (which eclipsed that even of Tomori' at Derby).
If this was done correctly, Guehi would be here now.
No hindsight required to know & understand top class on the books, just some due diligience, fairness and willingness to integrate.
Videos, highlights, scouting reports are out there and Tuchel would have the best resources available.
To not extensively know of a players qualities at the club that you are managing is a serious case of negligence. Basic lack of due diligence.
Especially considering he would have presumably used the same resources to identify Fofana as a top CB target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was still a choice, one that many have taken over the years, he chose not to as others have. It happens, I still remember feeling disappointed when Muzzy Izzet went to Leicester, I thought he decided to leave too soon. Work out fine for JT though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is Tuchel showed no signs of confidence in Guehi to make him believe he had a shot in the first-team (I'd wager he didnt even know who Guehi was, which is the worst part).
At the time of his departure, bearing in mind...Guehi was final year of contract, had to commit long-term before second loan.
Why would he commit on those terms knowing that he doesn't have a realistic chance of breaking through under Tuchel?
Permanent departure a no-brainer.
posted on 17/8/22
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 3 hours, 58 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
comment by JFDI (U1657)
I think he had a choice, he wanted first team football and chose that. He could of followed the route of others and been in a position to take his chance now but chose to leave. We have a lot of prising youngsters, some will work out and some won't, what we don't have is a crystal ball. Hindsight is wonderful but not always useful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only choice provided to him was a loan (option to buy), Tuchel had no intention of keeping Guehi around the first-team.
Guehi rightly rejected second loan spell, knows his worth. He was part of the sale, which funded the signing of Lukaku.
The message sent out from the manager is important, Tuchel never assured him that there is path to play after a quite frankly outstanding loan spell (which eclipsed that even of Tomori' at Derby).
If this was done correctly, Guehi would be here now.
No hindsight required to know & understand top class on the books, just some due diligience, fairness and willingness to integrate.
Videos, highlights, scouting reports are out there and Tuchel would have the best resources available.
To not extensively know of a players qualities at the club that you are managing is a serious case of negligence. Basic lack of due diligence.
Especially considering he would have presumably used the same resources to identify Fofana as a top CB target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was still a choice, one that many have taken over the years, he chose not to as others have. It happens, I still remember feeling disappointed when Muzzy Izzet went to Leicester, I thought he decided to leave too soon. Work out fine for JT though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is Tuchel showed no signs of confidence in Guehi to make him believe he had a shot in the first-team (I'd wager he didnt even know who Guehi was, which is the worst part).
At the time of his departure, bearing in mind...Guehi was final year of contract, had to commit long-term before second loan.
Why would he commit on those terms knowing that he doesn't have a realistic chance of breaking through under Tuchel?
Permanent departure a no-brainer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know that?
As for length of contract what do you expect, send them on loan on a short contract and allow them to move on for free?
It's pretty standard for players to extend their contracts before going on loan.
posted on 17/8/22
Agree wholeheartedly cmf - the way we've handled the CB situation is a complete shambles in all honesty. Just failure after failure.
Selling Tomori and Guehi despite both Rudi and AC entering the final year of their contracts with zero certainty that they'd re-sign. We effectively lost 4 top CBs (aged 22-28) for the combined price of about £45m.
Now we're "building for the future" yet we've brought in Koulibaly (admittedly an elite CB - very happy to have him here) and re-signed Azpi on a 2 year deal. The combined age of our CBs in the PL opening game was ~100 years.
Tbf, we are trying to somewhat rectify our age issue by buying a young CB in Fofana but at a ridiculously inflated price (~£80m). And you're right - Fofana is a similar level to Guehi and Tomori - though I'd argue they're both better ball-playing CBs than him.
Also, what's going on with Chalobah? Barely got a look in since the start of the year. If we were prioritising our future then he 100% should be starting over Azpi. As it stands, it looks like Chalobah is our 3rd choice CB (after Azpi and James). These years are key for his development and I wouldn't be surprised if he also starts pushing for a move if there's no uptick in his playing time.
I'm very happy we managed to restrict Colwill's move to Brighton to a loan but it remains to be seen whether we'll be able to effectively integrate him in the 23/24 season.
The CM position will be our next ticking timebomb with both Kante and Jorginho entering the final year of their contracts...
posted on 17/8/22
So Tuchel gave Chalobah a shot but wouldn’t give Guehi a shot?
No, he clearly wasn’t interested in a fighting for a place so chose to leave, same as Livramento. Either that or he’s worse than Chalobah…
You can complain about the sales of Guehi and Tomori given what happened with Rudiger and Christensen but that’s more on the previous board than Tuchel.
posted on 17/8/22
Cmf would happily play lamptey James guehi christensen tomori and some youth team left back and watch us not compete for anything
posted on 17/8/22
I tried to visualise CMF.... To be fair to him he talks a good game.... But he's absolutely off his nut
posted on 17/8/22
comment by Randomer (U5245)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
So Tuchel gave Chalobah a shot but wouldn’t give Guehi a shot?
No, he clearly wasn’t interested in a fighting for a place so chose to leave, same as Livramento. Either that or he’s worse than Chalobah…
You can complain about the sales of Guehi and Tomori given what happened with Rudiger and Christensen but that’s more on the previous board than Tuchel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not pinning this all on Tuchel. It's a club problem. Though Tuchel isn't faultless either.
posted on 17/8/22
comment by minididi (U17584)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Randomer (U5245)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
So Tuchel gave Chalobah a shot but wouldn’t give Guehi a shot?
No, he clearly wasn’t interested in a fighting for a place so chose to leave, same as Livramento. Either that or he’s worse than Chalobah…
You can complain about the sales of Guehi and Tomori given what happened with Rudiger and Christensen but that’s more on the previous board than Tuchel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not pinning this all on Tuchel. It's a club problem. Though Tuchel isn't faultless either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some might call it a problem, for me it's a consequence.
posted on 17/8/22
comment by minididi (U17584)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
comment by Randomer (U5245)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
So Tuchel gave Chalobah a shot but wouldn’t give Guehi a shot?
No, he clearly wasn’t interested in a fighting for a place so chose to leave, same as Livramento. Either that or he’s worse than Chalobah…
You can complain about the sales of Guehi and Tomori given what happened with Rudiger and Christensen but that’s more on the previous board than Tuchel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not pinning this all on Tuchel. It's a club problem. Though Tuchel isn't faultless either.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It's not a problem, it's been part of the trade off for instant gratification success under the previous regime, or a consequence as JFDI put it.
The reason our managers haven't been inclined to integrate youth freely, even one's proven to in the past like Tuchel, is because they know there's so little margin for error to keep them off the chopping block. That would be a problem if we weren't getting something back, but 20 trophies in as many years is more than fair compensation.
The great thing is if we ever want to change direction we can instantly, the academy is spitting out PL quality players for fun. Most clubs wouldn't have the option without investing a lot of time & money
posted on 17/8/22
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
Cmf would happily play lamptey James guehi christensen tomori and some youth team left back and watch us not compete for anything
--------------------------------------------------------------
True, but we all have our weird biases. I genuinely would've been fine with us being relegated in 2016 just to see us conquer a different challenge.
CMF would've loved it too, cos I can guarantee the academy would've featured prominently in the resurrection
posted on 17/8/22
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
Cmf would happily play lamptey James guehi christensen tomori and some youth team left back and watch us not compete for anything
--------------------------------------------------------------
True, but we all have our weird biases. I genuinely would've been fine with us being relegated in 2016 just to see us conquer a different challenge.
CMF would've loved it too, cos I can guarantee the academy would've featured prominently in the resurrection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Been there seen that, not in a hurry to go through it again
posted on 17/8/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
Cmf would happily play lamptey James guehi christensen tomori and some youth team left back and watch us not compete for anything
--------------------------------------------------------------
True, but we all have our weird biases. I genuinely would've been fine with us being relegated in 2016 just to see us conquer a different challenge.
CMF would've loved it too, cos I can guarantee the academy would've featured prominently in the resurrection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Been there seen that, not in a hurry to go through it again
----------------------------------------------------
Not been there, not seen it, hence curious
Tbf it would've been simulated jeopardy unlike in the past, I'm certain Roman wouldn't have gone anywhere, just built again for scratch. But it would've been a cool recovery story like Juventus.
posted on 18/8/22
"Also, what's going on with Chalobah? Barely got a look in since the start of the year. If we were prioritising our future then he 100% should be starting over Azpi. As it stands, it looks like Chalobah is our 3rd choice CB (after Azpi and James). These years are key for his development and I wouldn't be surprised if he also starts pushing for a move if there's no uptick in his playing time."
The moment Fofana (or any other CB is in), Chalobah is out.
No space in matchday squad and no minutes available.
Ramifications of retaining an unfit for purpose Azpi.
It was a good run, Chalobah had a fortunate set of circumstances to breakthrough...
The plan all along was to offload Chalobah (loan or permanent), provided the signing of Kounde went through last summer...that fell through.
Moreover Thiago Silva struggling for fitness at the beginning of last season and the rest coming back late from euros, missing a chunk of pre-season worked in his favour.
Added to the fact Tuchel knew a little about him from his time in France (The minute difference between him & Guehi).
Established quality now finds himself having to suffer the ignomy of playing reserve football this season, which is really not on. Sad, but that is what he has to deal with.
Again isn't due to a lack of fight, it's a lack of trust (and favoritism) which isn't afforded to him.
All happening on Tuchel's watch.
These are the type of players one keeps around, particularly after finding out that he can cut it at the highest level against top-level opponents.
Even as a squad or utility player, academy will always have the mental edge.
Naturally Chalobah' progress should have led him to be the one to replace Azpi permanently, with the upward trajectory shown last season...but as it turns out the manager has other ideas.
Erroneously deciding a player who has no future at the club should be prioritised.
Page 1 of 2