Joe Tweeds from the excellent PlainsOfAlmeria.Com muses on the lack of development for our crop of talented youth players…
There will come a point when John Terry retires that a gap at the very core of the club will appear. We are incredibly fortunate that many overseas stars fall in love with the club. The bond they have transcends football and you can tangibly feel the connection. Nevertheless, there is something unique and inherently important about players who have come through the Academy. No one has given more to this club in recent years than Terry – the list of painkilling injections and injuries are testament to that.
Charly Musonda Jr recently told Kristof Terreur, a Belgian football journalist, that “John Terry is a top lad. He knows all the youngsters by name. After a good performance he even sends text messages”. That may be Terry’s personality, but you get the impression he has a genuine interest in the Academy process. Having that type of relationship is critical: we need to find a way of replicating that when Terry eventually departs.
We are fortunate that many of our youngsters grew up at the club. The likes of Nathan Aké, Jeremie Boga and Charly Musonda Jr are the cream of an increasingly talented overseas group. They will understand the club due to the influence of senior players. Musonda and Boga frequently speak of spending time with Eden Hazard and Didier Drogba is a constant source of motivation. What about our next Terry though? Who, if any, of our English contingent will make a breakthrough? Having an English Academy product playing for the First Team maintains the connection within the squad to the fans. They are essentially “one of us”.
The development of young players is an inexact science. It was only Terry’s insistence that he wanted to remain at the club that stopped him from being sold to Huddersfield Town for £750,000 when he was a youngster. Terry managed to stay at the club and learn from Marcel Desailly and Frank Leboeuf before finally taking his opportunity. We almost let our greatest ever captain and centre back leave the club for less than £1m.
Players develop at different points and in different environments. Given how well Ryan Bertrand is currently playing for Southampton he could feasibly (but we know he won’t) return to Chelsea and have Azpilicueta move back to his natural right-back slot. While I was never too fond of Daniel Sturridge, he is a salient example of a player being moved on too soon.
Even if his attitude was horrifically poor, to only have made £15m from someone who is now England’s first choice striker makes little sense. We appear reticent to trust the talent of English youngsters or give them prolonged opportunities that expensive signings tend to enjoy.
How do we bridge the gap? Chelsea unequivocally has one of the finest academies in the world. From the U21s down we play attacking, tactically astute football and develop players who are continually among the best in their respective age groups. Our use of the loan market should be lauded on the one hand for its entrepreneurial flair, but are we actually developing players? Is the aim to merely generate revenue to spend on more established players? Are we legitimately looking to have the next John Terry step up from the U21s into the first team? Do the club understand the importance of retaining an English home grown core?
Using Nathaniel Chalobah as an example demonstrates the perils and frustrations of utilising the loan system. He is the perfect illustration of a wonderfully talented 
player whose career has stagnated through mismanagement. Nathaniel is likely to be a ball playing box-to-box midfielder when he settles as a professional; he shone in this capacity for Watford. Nevertheless, his move to Nottingham Forest was a bewildering decision. Forest, at the time, was a direct back-to-front team whose need for a ball playing midfielder was minimal. Yet, the club appeared happy for Chalobah to head there on loan. After an apparent disagreement with the manager Chalobah barely played and wasted half a season riding the bench.
He returned to Chelsea before heading Middlesbrough where he played some decent football, but he was clearly adapting rather than excelling.
Chalobah essentially wasted three quarters of a season due to the clubs original placement of the player. The most worrying conclusion from his Nottingham Forest stint is that the club are not paying attention to where they are sending players. Chalobah has been educated to play the game in a certain way – Nottingham Forest was the antithesis of that philosophy, yet we still sent him there. By the time Chalobah was comfortable at Middlesbrough there was only a small pool of games for him to actually play in. The theme has continued this season.
Undoubtedly Chalobah is good enough to be playing Premier League football, even at just 19. However, he is playing for a manager who appears fearful of playing him. Again questions must be asked of those in charge. Why have we sent him to Burnley when the manager has a history of playing it safe and who is unwilling to gamble? Even Burnley fans have openly said that Chalobah looks like their best midfielder from brief cameos. Despite only just recording their first win, he remains firmly on the bench. What is he learning? He is nothing more than a cheap body to fill their training squad.
You have to begin to question the wisdom of the decision makers at the club. It is hardly a revelation that managers will rarely entrust a teenager with a starting berth in the Premier League. If they lose and go about things in “the right way” then they absolve themselves of any blame.
It takes a courageous manager to take a teenage talent and drop him into his first team on merit. If the team loses then immediately people are looking at the teenager and the manager – “why is he playing that kid”.
Such are the financial stakes for both the club and the manager the risk is often too high. Appearances are everything, even in football.
Things are difficult to predict with regards to young players, but there appears to be little due diligence being carried out on potential loan destinations. Why Burnley, given their manager essentially refuses to trust youth? Why Nottingham Forest when they play the exact opposite of Chelsea?
Why are we not identifying teams in the lower divisions who like to play football and seeking them out? John Swift at Rotherham is a case in point.
Easily their most talented midfielder, he is barely even making the first team squad presumably because he does not fly into tackles like an early 20s John Terry. Nearly every loan this season is a disaster. Tomáš Kalas, remember him? Cracking debut at Anfield – barely getting a look in the Bundesliga. The list goes on.
Chelsea has the ability to go out and buy the best players in the world.
The bar to make just one appearance at Chelsea is immensely high and it is unrealistic to expect every good Academy player to make the transition. Are we doing enough though? The club appear to be reluctant to send Lewis Baker on loan, but why? He has barely featured, even in games when other youngsters have played (Aké, Christensen and Zouma). If the best English player in the U21 League last season cannot get a game against Shrewsbury, when is he ever going to play? Why is he not on loan – do we not think he is good enough to even play in League 1 or 2? Have we realised that this current crop of loanees is barely playing?
The idea of “Chelsea B” has already been crushed by the Football League, even if it would make a huge difference. We must therefore continue to rely on the only means available. A mediocre U21 league and a loan system that rarely sends back first team calibre players. If loans are really the only way to guarantee another Terry type presence in the squad we must utilise them better. From a business sense we have nailed the concept, but from a player development standpoint we have a lot to learn. Is there a happy medium? I just hope the club realise the importance before it’s too late as the talent is there, it just needs a little more thought for it to materialise.
