AaronRedDevil
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2018
- Messages
- 9,880
Trade him for Mount
Almost as if playing a deep lying playmaker in that actual position brings out the best in them, who'd have guessed.
Trade him for Mount
You cannot be serious.He'd ride the bench behind Mainoo and I'm not even joking
You cannot be serious.
You cannot be serious.
He's technically very very good, great in tight space with amazing control.I'm dead serious. Enzo is a really good passer but not suitable to play #6 or #10. The only role for him would be at #8 and Mainoo brings more to the table than him there already.
He's technically very very good, great in tight space with amazing control.
Mainoo might be better in time, but he's a kid and has a lot of developing to do
I don't get it. I know managers like Poch have forgotten more about football than I've ever known but why mess with his position. At least for Argentina it was clear he was brilliant as DLP, why would you move him further forward?
Yeah agree - oftentimes it seems like chaos is the sole objective which is problematic.
Lavia might be an asset here - especially as of our current midfielders he's the one best suited to sitting deep and breaking presses on the ball. I'd also just bring Enzo deeper and play with 3 CBs - our wingers have been pretty useless and I'd rather just use the very attack minded fullbacks we have as wingbacks to provide width.
Think it depends what you use your academy for, they have the premier talents and use them to make money so in that sense it's been very good for them. In terms of integrating youth players, yeah, they're pretty abysmal at it. They had a spell under Lampard due to the transfer ban where they were decent at integrating but that's been about it.They have a good academy but not sure It’s the best or has been the best.
They are awful at integrating young players in my opinion.
I honestly think it was because Enzo wanted to play further forward. Potter and Lampard said we had to play him deeper because we sold Jorginho. Poch at the start of the season said Enzo wanted to play with more freedom, I think after the Liverpool match. He's so much more involved playing deeper though.
tumescent footballerHe's technically very very good, great in tight space with amazing control.
Think it depends what you use your academy for, they have the premier talents and use them to make money so in that sense it's been very good for them. In terms of integrating youth players, yeah, they're pretty abysmal at it. They had a spell under Lampard due to the transfer ban where they were decent at integrating but that's been about it.
We’ve integrated a new academy player pretty much every single season since that Lampard season. That was nearly 5 years ago. Tell me how many other clubs have done that? Unless the expectation is that Chelsea should be rolling with teams made up of 90% academy products, then I think it’s a bit harsh to say we’re abysmal at integrating youth.
What’s happening here is that Chelsea are producing PL level players at a much higher clip than almost any other club in this league but then also get the most criticism for letting the most academy players go, despite keeping a lot of them too. There some obvious high profile blunders that Chelsea messed up in (Mount, Tomori, even Hall etc) but it’s not nearly as bad as some like to pretend it is.
United have, don't know about any of the other top 6. Abysmal is probably a bit harsh, but I still don't think you're particularly great at it. My expectation, personally, isn't that you should be 90% academy players, I just can't help but feel half (exaggeration) of the players you let go were better than some of what you had on the books or their replacements, to me that's an integration problem. If what you say is true then you're obviously better at it than you used to be.We’ve integrated a new academy player pretty much every single season since that Lampard season. That was nearly 5 years ago. Tell me how many other clubs have done that? Unless the expectation is that Chelsea should be rolling with teams made up of 90% academy products, then I think it’s a bit harsh to say we’re abysmal at integrating youth.
What’s happening here is that Chelsea are producing PL level players at a much higher clip than almost any other club in this league but then also get the most criticism for letting the most academy players go, despite keeping a lot of them too. There some obvious high profile blunders that Chelsea messed up in (Mount, Tomori, even Hall etc) but it’s not nearly as bad as some like to pretend it is.
United have, don't know about any of the other top 6. Abysmal is probably a bit harsh, but I still don't think you're particularly great at it. My expectation, personally, isn't that you should be 90% academy players, I just can't help but feel half (exaggeration) of the players you let go were better than some of what you had on the books or their replacements, to me that's an integration problem. If what you say is true then you're obviously better at it than you used to be.
And Ederson would be a midfielder if he had a say, very few fullbacks grew up wanting to be fullbacks (well until recently atleast).I honestly think it was because Enzo wanted to play further forward. Potter and Lampard said we had to play him deeper because we sold Jorginho. Poch at the start of the season said Enzo wanted to play with more freedom, I think after the Liverpool match. He's so much more involved playing deeper though.
Some of the names you have let go..
Tomori
Guehi
Mount
Hall
Abraham
Liveramento
Lamptey
Rice
Olise
Nketiah
Solanke
Ake
Quite a few blunders I’d say.
Some of those aren’t blunders. Letting go of a kid at 13-14 isn’t a blunder ffs. I certainly wouldn’t consider a player who took until the age of 26 to become a good PL player a blunder, that also had a chance at Liverpool but wasn’t good enough. You are just listing players for the sake of listing players.
Nketiah, Rice and Olise were 13-14-15 years old. That shit happens. Not blunder at that age.
We’ve gone over Lamptey and Livramento before but you can’t force players to stay when they don’t want to. Both were offered deals but they saw Reece James ahead of them and rightly thought they’d be better off playing elsewhere. Not a blunder if the players themselves ask to leave.
Solanke is having his breakout season aged 26. He’s a blunder?
That’s half of your list already that I think is nonsense.
United have, don't know about any of the other top 6. Abysmal is probably a bit harsh, but I still don't think you're particularly great at it. My expectation, personally, isn't that you should be 90% academy players, I just can't help but feel half (exaggeration) of the players you let go were better than some of what you had on the books or their replacements, to me that's an integration problem. If what you say is true then you're obviously better at it than you used to be.
Suppose you're better at it than Liverpool who've brought through about 3 players in 10 years and get lauded as being great with bringing through youth.
Another question I have is how long do Chelsea remain having the best academy in the country? That was entirely Abramovich's doing, now he's no longer in the picture I do wonder if it begins to decline in quality over the next decade or so under the new ownership structure.
Off the top of my head we've had atleast one integration every year bar one since Conte.We’ve integrated a new academy player pretty much every single season since that Lampard season. That was nearly 5 years ago. Tell me how many other clubs have done that? Unless the expectation is that Chelsea should be rolling with teams made up of 90% academy products, then I think it’s a bit harsh to say we’re abysmal at integrating youth.
What’s happening here is that Chelsea are producing PL level players at a much higher clip than almost any other club in this league but then also get the most criticism for letting the most academy players go, despite keeping a lot of them too. There some obvious high profile blunders that Chelsea messed up in (Mount, Tomori, even Hall etc) but it’s not nearly as bad as some like to pretend it is.
To be fair you also just stockpiled players so it is inevitable you let a few good ones go. Whether that's a good thing to do or not is a question but realistically you probably made profit overall and the ones that were good enough to succeed did so.
Some of those aren’t blunders. Letting go of a kid at 13-14 isn’t a blunder ffs. I certainly wouldn’t consider a player who took until the age of 26 to become a good PL player a blunder, that also had a chance at Liverpool but wasn’t good enough. You are just listing players for the sake of listing players.
Nketiah, Rice and Olise were 13-14-15 years old. That shit happens. Not blunder at that age.
We’ve gone over Lamptey and Livramento before but you can’t force players to stay when they don’t want to. Both were offered deals but they saw Reece James ahead of them and rightly thought they’d be better off playing elsewhere. Not a blunder if the players themselves ask to leave.
Solanke is having his breakout season aged 26. He’s a blunder?
That’s half of your list already that I think is nonsense.
What?tumescent footballer
I said quite a few blunders. Perhaps some of them aren’t.
Abraham and Solanke are arguably better than the host of CFs you have signed since them. They probably have more PL goals between them than any other.
Id be gutted if United were ditching so many talented young players and signing lower quality ones for big money myself. It looks like Maatsen will move, along with Broja and Gallagher in the summer. Surprised this kind of thing doesn’t bother you.
If you think that’s a sign of excelling in youth integration then we will agree to disagree I guess.
Solanke forced a move away to Liverpool. He wasn’t ditched by Chelsea. He wanted to leave. And even then I took him until the age of 26 to have a breakout PL season. I’m happy for him. I’ll always be rooting for him, but letting player like him go isn’t really something I’d hold against the club. And again, he wanted to leave. Can’t force players to stay.
Tammy I’d agree with you but I’d by hypocrite if I didn’t at least mention that I was happy to sell him at the time. Wrong decision in hindsight.
I am gutted about this. You know this. We’ve had this same discussion so many times I’m surprised you still frame your posts to me in the way you do. I argue with you because you present your criticism (some of which I agree with) in such black and white terms without any context with overly negative phrasing. I’ll always defend my club or add the context I feel is missing.
This is a fair response and I appreciate your views even if we may disagree on some bits.
Yeah I don’t think he’s dynamic enough to play further forward. Not really a goalscorer/runner and his top class passing range gets wasted a bit. Hes much better for me as a deeper lying metronome that can be a secondary creator.
Not actually sure he's real.
Enzo played closer to Caicedo which actually allowed them to pass the ball between them at times today. Hope they're instructed to keep doing so because they both played quite well.
Sorry mate Lavia isn’t a real person. He’s just a thought experiment
Todd Boehly does it again!I think technically that would make him a piece of infrastructure meaning he becomes inadmissible for FFP.
Having a model based on making profit from selling academy players isnt something I’d argue is reasonable to criticise Chelsea for.Some of the names you have let go..
Tomori
Guehi
Mount
Hall
Abraham
Liveramento
Lamptey
Rice
Olise
Nketiah
Solanke
Ake
Quite a few blunders I’d say.
I’ll also add the likes of Maatsen, Gallagher and Broja given they look likely to move on soon?