The Loan System is a Failure

Jose Mourinho wrote:‘This club is very demanding, it’s not easy to play football, the pressure is big,’

‘It’s not the same to play at a club where people just accept a so-so performance or result, or finishing fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth, that’s not the best habitat for a young player to develop.

Indeed, Jose. As our last player to come through is John Terry, at a time when the title wasn't a requirement at the end of every season. A better habitat for young players than today. So the obvious option is to loan out our talented youngsters. McEachran, Bertrand, Kakuta, Bruma, Van Aanholt, and Chalobah have all been highly touted at some point and farmed out on loan. Quite often the lower league loans were a success (Chalobah at Watford, for example) however, just like Jose, no one in the BPL wants to risk playing a youngster when they have more experienced players competing with them. That, in my opinion, is fair enough, especially when those players are not even owned by that club. Unless that young player is absolutely special, they're not going to get game time.

Chalobah is a case which is particularly frustrating, a few years ago, he had the world at his feet, he was our best youth player and everyone felt he was going to break into our first team. He had an excellent loan of Watford but he didn't replicate that form at Forest or Boro, and he barely saw the light of day at Burnley. While his form is recovering at Reading, for him to take the next step, he would have to play in the Premier league, which I doubt will happen. His boat with us has almost completely sailed, with younger players coming through, such as Ruben Loftus-Cheek. For this reason, we cannot make the same mistakes with our next group of youngsters as we have with the last.

While Jose cannot take risks on young players, If we want to see the likes of Solanke and RLC play for us in the future, the risk has to be taken. It should have been taken with McEachran, Kakuta and Chalobah. They all had the talent to play for us, but failed loans and various other reasons killed their chances with us.

Jose Mourinho wrote:'Next season Ruben Loftus-Cheek will be competing for a first team position. At the moment we are protecting him.'

Jose on Transfers wrote:And once more, I think our transfer policy will be nice and quiet...

Our transfer policy doesn't need a lot of funds, because we don't need a lot of things. We like our squad, we like our players and with a couple of exceptions we have a young squad.

If Jose is to keep RLC within the squad, he has to play. If he doesn't, rinse and repeat the story of Chalobah. These snippets from Jose's recent press conferences seem to indicate that RLC will be part of the first team and we won't be breaking the bank for Pogba. So let's use RLC, he deserves the chance. At 6'4, he has the physical tools to succeed at the highest level, and he is very gifted technically. Many articles have been quick to jump on the bandwagon in praising RLC. Including this article on WAGNH:

Joe Tweeds wrote:Ruben Loftus-Cheek is succinctly summed up by the inimitable @chelseayouth: “there simply aren’t very many players around with his combination of technique and physique”. Standing at 6’4” Loftus-Cheek is already built like a midfield tank and the way he coped with Yaya Touré, albeit in a friendly, suggested that little is going to trouble him physically. However, it is what he brings from a technical perspective that really sets the expectations for him at such a high level.

@chelseayouth wrote:He’s nothing left to do at U21 level now for me, and a loan has so many potential pitfalls that we’ve seen so many times before.

And Joe thoroughly believes he is the perfect partner for Matic:

Joe Tweeds wrote:Stylistically Loftus-Cheek ticks all the boxes and in terms of complementing Nemanja Matić he seems ideal. Technically he is able to play aggressive passes through the lines and also carry the ball beyond any initial wave of pressing. Having been brought up in Chelsea’s 6-8-10 midfield policy the comfort he has in all thirds of the pitch is superb. Defensively he has made huge strides this season and will have certainly improved training with the first team every day. He is probably our only true box-to-box player who has the technical quality to control a game with the ball from deep.

Had Chalobah or RLC come through a youth academy somewhere in the rest of Europe, Chelsea would have paid upwards of 5m pounds for them and they'd be featuring regularly, just look at Zouma.

It is time to forget the price tag and start playing our own youth players.

Starting with RLC, and Bamford, and continuing with Baker and Solanke. We could build up a great future with great English talent, which would propel our Academy into the category of 'the best in the world'.

It's something that won't happen over night, but given enough time, our youth players can become world class without leaving the club on loan after loan. So let's make it happen.

A teaser of RLC's ability:

I would like to point out that for our international talent, I think loaning works as they adapt to other countries, such as Germany better, so I would like to see it continued for purchased players not from England.

Another thread I can boycott

I kid, of course
-

Kick wrote:Chalobah is a case which is particularly frustrating, a few years ago, he had the world at his feet, he was our best youth player and everyone felt he was going to break into our first team. He had an excellent loan of Watford but he didn't replicate that form at Forest or Boro, and he barely saw the light of day at Burnley. While his form is recovering at Reading, for him to take the next step, he would have to play in the Premier league, which I doubt will happen. His boat with us has almost completely sailed, with younger players coming through, such as Ruben Loftus-Cheek. For this reason, we cannot make the same mistakes with our next group of youngsters as we have with the last.

-

And that there is the situation in an nutshell, both for him specifically and his ilk as a whole. HE didn't replicate his form. Chelsea as a club or any of its officials can't be blamed for players not living up to their potential or failing to mirror their form in youth leagues in professional ones. The only thing they can be held responsible for is the choice of club these players are sent to, which, while they had a few mares in that department this season, they generally do pretty damn well with. Nate had numerous chances, and has done little with them since his success at Watford. You can say he needs a Premier League loan, but he had his chance at Burnley and bombed. You can say he needs to be in the top flight to take the next step, but how can he step up to the highest level when he's not even shown he's capable of competence in the Championship? Same for McEachran. Alot of potential, showed some quality in the few chances he got with us, performed very well on his subsequent loan to Boro, then tanked. Can't see how the club can be held accountable for that, unless you think the manager should be giving minutes to players who can't even get into mid-table Championship sides at the expense of superior ones just for the sake of saying we play youth.
-

Mind you I don't mean by any of this that youth players shouldn't be given a chance, or that there haven't been instances where they very well already should have been. Look at Aké for example. There's no reason whatsoever he couldn't have featured in a number of games this season, either as a starter or a sub, especially given our lack of options in his position, as well as the utter mediocrity of some of the players for there we do have. Zouma is another one (although I'm aware this thread is centered more on academy players). The boy was performing quite well in the opportunities he [somewhat surprisingly] did get, yet he's abruptly and inexplicably been dropped for Cahill, who's far from had a glowing season. Which is another part of the problem. Even when young players DO come in, and DO outperform their older, established counterparts, Mourinho will almost invariably revert back to the more 'experienced' player eventually, for no other reason than that he does have that experience. Even if form is inferior, age seems to trump it. You can't expect to have a successful policy, put into practice, whereby youth challenge mainstays (*which would be of immense psychological benefit to both parties and thus Chelsea), if this is the mentality.
-

And part of it absolutely is a structural and a foundational one. The manager simply must be able to feel he's able to give young players chances, and that he's not going to lose his job if a result here or there suffers because they don't come in and instantaneously perform as well or better than the experienced ones they were chosen over. So the owner's got alot to do with it, and is probably the biggest thing the future of our youth policy going forward will be dependent on/determined by.
That said, I do think the blame partly does fall at the manager's feet. Take for example some of the games we've played this season where we've blown teams away. There's simply no rhyme or reason why José didn't bring on some youth in the latter stages of those matches. He's talked a very good game (as he often does), but as yet, and as I feared and noted on here at the time, I've not seen any action to back up the rhetoric.
-

*By this I obviously mean youth believing they can successfully pressure established players if they work hard and progress, and established players knowing mere tenure isn't enough on its own to keep them in the side and that their place is not guaranteed. The worst thing going for us at the moment is this apparent but sadly all-too-familiar 'untouchables' policy in which no amount of quality will see anybody come in, and no amount of lack of quality will see anybody drop out.

Shed wrote:I kid, of course
-

Kick wrote:Chalobah is a case which is particularly frustrating, a few years ago, he had the world at his feet, he was our best youth player and everyone felt he was going to break into our first team. He had an excellent loan of Watford but he didn't replicate that form at Forest or Boro, and he barely saw the light of day at Burnley. While his form is recovering at Reading, for him to take the next step, he would have to play in the Premier league, which I doubt will happen. His boat with us has almost completely sailed, with younger players coming through, such as Ruben Loftus-Cheek. For this reason, we cannot make the same mistakes with our next group of youngsters as we have with the last.

-

And that there is the situation in an nutshell, both for him specifically and his ilk as a whole. HE didn't replicate his form. Chelsea as a club or any of its officials can't be blamed for players not living up to their potential or failing to mirror their form in youth leagues in professional ones. The only thing they can be held responsible for is the choice of club these players are sent to, which, while they had a few mares in that department this season, they generally do pretty damn well with. Nate had numerous chances, and has done little with them since his success at Watford. You can say he needs a Premier League loan, but he had his chance at Burnley and bombed. You can say he needs to be in the top flight to take the next step, but how can he step up to the highest level when he's not even shown he's capable of competence in the Championship? Same for McEachran. Alot of potential, showed some quality in the few chances he got with us, performed very well on his subsequent loan to Boro, then tanked. Can't see how the club can be held accountable for that, unless you think the manager should be giving minutes to players who can't even get into mid-table Championship sides at the expense of superior ones just for the sake of saying we play youth.
-

Here is my problem with this, and I will use Zouma and Mikel as examples. The coaching that any player will get with our first team, WILL be far better than what they will get in the championship, or even at smaller teams in the EPL. So had Chalobah stayed instead of being loaned, he could have very easily replaced Mikel, who, let's face it, is not thrown on to win us games but to help us see them out. A job which Chalobah could have done last season and this, and a job which RLC could do next season. Which would give Chalobah over 50 appearences for us over the two seasons. Vital experience, coming from games which we were more than likely already winning and just needing to finish off.
Which brings me to the Zouma example, remember how bad he was during pre-season? Every long ball went over his head. Now look at Zouma, he looks incredible in every game, and that is down to Jose's coaching of him. Something similar could well have been done with Chalobah, instead of the poor loans. If we saw Zouma type improvement with Mikel type appearences, Chalobah would be knocking on the door of the first team by now. All without leaving the club after a successful Watford loan. This is what has to happen to RLC, so we do not make the same mistake, again.

There is very little difference between Zouma and RLC, both are young physical beasts who have the technique and the brains to become great players, the only difference is that we paid 10m for Zouma.

Shed wrote:
Mind you I don't mean by any of this that youth players shouldn't be given a chance, or that there haven't been instances where they very well already should have been. Look at Aké for example. There's no reason whatsoever he couldn't have featured in a number of games this season, either as a starter or a sub, especially given our lack of options in his position, as well as the utter mediocrity of some of the players for there we do have. Zouma is another one (although I'm aware this thread is centered more on academy players). The boy was performing quite well in the opportunities he [somewhat surprisingly] did get, yet he's abruptly and inexplicably been dropped for Cahill, who's far from had a glowing season. Which is another part of the problem. Even when young players DO come in, and DO outperform their older, established counterparts, Mourinho will almost invariably revert back to the more 'experienced' player eventually, for no other reason than that he does have that experience. Even if form is inferior, age seems to trump it. You can't expect to have a successful policy, put into practice, whereby youth challenge mainstays (*which would be of immense psychological benefit to both parties and thus Chelsea), if this is the mentality.
-

To be honest, dropping Zouma doesn't bother me, he will come back into the team and the experience he gained by playing is vital. He just needs to bide his time and he will return. I am glad he made the appearances he did, and like I said, we need to do the same with other young players, our own players, not purchased ones.

It is a mentality which needs to change, though. Utd and Arsenal have produced some great players over the years while being competitive, we need to realise that we must do the same.

Shed wrote:
And part of it absolutely is a structural and a foundational one. The manager simply must be able to feel he's able to give young players chances, and that he's not going to lose his job if a result here or there suffers because they don't come in and instantaneously perform as well or better than the experienced ones they were chosen over. So the owner's got alot to do with it, and is probably the biggest thing the future of our youth policy going forward will be dependent on/determined by.
That said, I do think the blame partly does fall at the manager's feet. Take for example some of the games we've played this season where we've blown teams away. There's simply no rhyme or reason why José didn't bring on some youth in the latter stages of those matches. He's talked a very good game (as he often does), but as yet, and as I feared and noted on here at the time, I've not seen any action to back up the rhetoric.
-

*By this I obviously mean youth believing they can successfully pressure established players if they work hard and progress, and established players knowing mere tenure isn't enough on its own to keep them in the side and that their place is not guaranteed. The worst thing going for us at the moment is this apparent but sadly all-too-familiar 'untouchables' policy in which no amount of quality will see anybody come in, and no amount of lack of quality will see anybody drop out.

It is something which I believe we are addressing but further changes must be made, like I said, the price tag of the player must be ignored if we ever want to develop our own.

And removing older, average players will help, too (I'm looking at Drogba and Mikel, here.)

Mou won't give them a chance when they come back from loan and if they are younger 24 so no point in our loan system.

No long term future with Mou.

I have to say, Ade.

I knew what you were going to post while writing this, that I could have written your post for you.

Also, it's not just Mourinho who has failed to play youth players, no manager has for the better part of a decade.

So if Jose wants to be here long term, it's a change he'll have to make.

Great posts Shed and Kick. I don't agree with everything but still great insight. I will replay to them specifically at another time.


But here is my initial thoughts.

If you want to appoint youth, you better play them rather then just sending them on loan. If you go on loan you better adapt fast and be at least twice as good as any option at that position. Because of two reason those clubs only care for immediate impact and result if you cant do that then you will not play.Mistakes are costly so are bad performances.

No club is going to invest in our players, either they produce now and on a regular basis or they don't play. They are not in for the long run, because they only care for now and so should they.

Only players that should go on loan, are those players that are already professional footballers.

Harry Kane was struggling on loan a season ago, so just because player does bad on loan doesn't mean they are bad it is mostly because they failed to adapt immediately. I am also sure Barkley struggled on loan also.

On Mou? lets face the fact he is a short term manager, he knows it and we know it. I don't believe he believe he will be here in 4-5 years. So for him what is the point of playing youth? since Ramires and Mikel gives us a better chance and will perform better RLC. Playing RLC is risky and it is much better to play establish player if you want immediate result.

But know that playing RLC is beneficial in the long run, because he is most likely going to be a better player then those two combined.

But Mou wont be here to enjoy that since another manager will enjoy the labor and hard work of developing RLC.

I have a problem with calling Mourinho a sort term manager, as he was always one because he had goals to win everything in the three biggest leagues. He has now done that, what is there left for him to achieve? If he wants to be remembered as a great manager, he should settle down and try to build one of the great squads throughout history. Sacchi's Milan or Pep's Barca. I am sure everyone would want to hear a 'Jose's Chelsea', one day. I know he wants to manage at International level one day but he is too young to do is presently, so for the next 10 years or so, he'll want to manage a club team, why not make it one team?

Maybe I just live in hope Jose will hang around.

On to the rest of the post:

Blue wrote:If you want to appoint youth, you better play them rather then just sending them on loan. If you go on loan you better adapt fast and be at least twice as good as any option at that position. Because of two reason those clubs only care for immediate impact and result if you cant do that then you will not play.Mistakes are costly so are bad performances.

No club is going to invest in our players, either they produce now and on a regular basis or they don't play. They are not in for the long run, because they only care for now and so should they.

Couldn't agree more with this, which is why we have to take the risk, not the club where the player is loaned.

Blue wrote:Harry Kane was struggling on loan a season ago, so just because player does bad on loan doesn't mean they are bad it is mostly because they failed to adapt immediately. I am also sure Barkley struggled on loan also.

That is a good point, See what Kane has done with a decent amount of game time at a top club.

Experience is a factor which is overly emphasized.

Let's dig in a little deeper; experience will help you if you're an aging athlete by putting the right efforts into the right places at the right time. It will help you in your positioning, decision making and anticipation skills.

It's important for GK, defenders, poachers, but not so important to young hungry talented midfielders or strikers. And by not so important I mean, the talent and drive of the young player will even up / level up his lack of experience.

If the player is talented, passionate about the sport, he will absorb the experience at an exponential rate. 1 Match would equal to 10, 10 matches a season, 1 season to 3.

Manager should be responsible for the growth, use and misuse of the upcoming talents.

Even from before Mou I've said that the clubs continued failure to give kids even a brief run (I cant think of anyone other than Kakuta and Mcechran) proves that the youth system as a means of supporting Chelsea is a massive failure, as the most important link in the chain is non-existant

There is absolutley no reason why players like Piazon and Chalobah should be out on loan when they are MORE then good enough to be getting a run off the bench and in cup games at least.

For the good of the careers of players like Bamford and RLC, I hope they leave Chelsea asap

And as far as Mous comments saying that Chelsea is too high pressure an environment too blood youth, then how is it that SAF was able to blood youth on a regular basis and still remain competitive at the top level for a long long time?

fatman123 wrote:

And as far as Mous comments saying that Chelsea is too high pressure an environment too blood youth, then how is it that SAF was able to blood youth on a regular basis and still remain competitive at the top level for a long long time?

Because he wasnt a short term manager like Mou, wanted to beat Liverpools target.

Or for example Pep played an 18 yo Hojberg in the final of the Pokal last season. If that were Chelsea, Hojberg would have been kicking stones in the third division instead

It's something we have to change, Fitty.

Especially if these new rules for homegrown players come through.

The new laws proposed by the FA further strengthens my point that our academy players should not go on loan but stay with us.

With potentially 12 homegrown players needed in a squad by 2020, having the likes of Bamford, Baker, Solanke and RLC would give us 4 straight off.

Shed wrote:Aké loaned to Reading
-

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2015/03/ake-loaned-to-reading.html

Case in point...

Not sure Ake counts, really. He is dutch, afterall.

I could see him having a solid loan in Germany, tbh.

He's been with us since he was 15 and has played for all of our youth sides.

So he'll count as homegrown regardless of the FA's new rules?

It doesn't change the fact he is dutch and if we were to loan him, we could loan him outside of England.