PL2 City v Chelsea - 11th August - ko 1905

Discussion in 'EDS and Academy Forum' started by eyejay51, 11 Aug 2017.

  1. depps

    depps

    Joined:
    11 Jan 2008
    Girmahaw played. But no sign of Muric, Tosin, Diaz or Foden in the squad so have they all travelled down to Brighton with the first team?

    I assume Sancho isn't in Brighton and is just acting the prick
     
  2. cleavers

    cleavers

    Joined:
    30 May 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Home or work
    Result ?
     
  3. Ruzzles

    Ruzzles

    Joined:
    29 May 2017
    0-0

    Probably remains to be seen if they make the bench though Muric probably won't for sure or Bravo has to be really unfit.
     
  4. cleavers

    cleavers

    Joined:
    30 May 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Home or work
    Lol, thanks, reading the posts in the thread I assumed we'd lost about 6-0, a draw away, with half the good players missing, is not quite as bad a result as some of the posts would suggest.
     
  5. Ruzzles

    Ruzzles

    Joined:
    29 May 2017
    Was a home game but regardless of the results (those don't matter in youth football imo it's all about developing and playing well) City played absolutely shocking football and were so lethargic just like the EDS were last season it's a terrible place to develop under Davies.
     
  6. cleavers

    cleavers

    Joined:
    30 May 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Home or work
    Thanks.
     
  7. East Level 2

    East Level 2

    Joined:
    23 Jul 2013
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Manchester
    Not a great start to the season but I least I got close to the new Holy Grail; the amazing glass tunnel. I may have lied about the "amazing" bit.
    Hoping Brighton tomorrow might be a bit better.
     
  8. Nelly's Left Foot

    Nelly's Left Foot

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2009
    We were not great obviously but I think it was 8 of tonights team that were playing or eligible to play under 18's last season. That's a young side. Not sure how young Chelsea were but they looked a lot more physically developed.

    We started well, nearly score 3 times in our first attack.They got better and threatened a bit but nothing too serious. nil nil at half time. Chelsea were fast out of the blocks 2nd half and probably should have scored with a guy clean on Grimshaw who stood up well and then pounced as he thought about going round him.

    I was quite surprised for a while they didn't score as it seemed inevitable. We seemed to be tired and some of the decision making was awful but somehow we got back into and came close ourselves but 0.0 it finished. Not a bad result really but my guess is as we blood a young team we might take a few beatings.

    Grimshaw in goal was very good bar one flap at a cross which ended with a clearance off the line.

    Duhaney ok defensively but not too good on the ball and didnt get forward that often from his regular full back role.
    Wilson on the other side also quite good defensively but little going forward
    The 2 centre backs Oliver and Francis I thought were very good against a good attacking side. Oliver maybe motm for me.
    Davenport back in his natural role played well most of the time but a few poor moments could have been costly. Still reads the game and intercepts well.
    Smith at times excellent as ever but also got a bit lost at times I thought. Never question these 2 for effort.

    Taylor Richards is a very talented lad and it showed at times but he just wasnt involved enough. Will need to get used to the physicality at this level. Taken off quite early 2nd half but he will come through it.
    Garre also not involved enough and physically out of it. Still to see anything here to warrant the wonder kid tag he came with.
    Nmecha disappointed me. Good goalscorer and talented lad but far too often he tried to do something for himself rather than play simple and retain possession. Just very poor at holding the ball to bring others in tonight.

    Dilrosun definitely our main threat and looking very dangerous with close control and pace as he attacked from the right.
    Matondo who came on for Garre also was a threat and helped us get back as a threat with raw pace and good intent. I want to see more of him.
     
  9. mccity

    mccity

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2010
    I don't know what it is, but the older the age group the more disjointed they look (at least compared to the younger teams). Maybe it's that players start getting shuffled between u16s, EDS and loan. Tonight was no exception.

    With no Diaz, Foden or Fernandes we were always going to struggle with getting Nmecha involved. But it's a new year and a new environment for a lot of these kids with a load of the older kids heading out on loan, and with Chelsea as the opponents it was always a tough test.

    I'm interested to see how Smith does this year. His passing range is extraordinary but he needs to stop watching Rooney and Gerrard and cut out the Hollywood stuff.

    Also Davies needs some help, I'm scared he's emulating the wrong first team at times!


    Chelsea teams are generally very similar to City teams age wise, I think it was the same tonight. But yeah their MO is sign the biggest players. Cynically I think that's because it makes them look better at 20 than the average and easier to sell for more, but hey ho,that's their business.
    But it means at times they just trounce us with pressing and 50/50 duels.
     
  10. OhForAGreavsie

    OhForAGreavsie

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2014
    Hello All, Chelsea fan.

    The academy system breaks down at this level. In theory, these sides are the modern equivalent of reserve teams, but in truth they are the reserve reserves at best. At all the leading clubs, the better players of development age are syphoned off into the loan system while the odd gems, like Diaz and Foden, move to the fringes of the first team. The result is that these games are often of lower quality, and therefore of lower value to the players involved, than they might be.

    None of us here sit in on recruitment planning meetings at Chelsea's academy, so none of us can know what the MO is. The idea that Chelsea prioritise size over technical ability is popular in these forums but, personally, I don't think it is so. Most of the lads in Chelsea's development sides joined the club aged 8 or younger. Hard to sift for size at that age.

    Clubs cast their nets wide and hoover up as many young players of potential as they can. If it were the case that Chelsea select the big lads to progress through the levels, then there would be a number of technically capable, but small, kids being picked up by other clubs after being rejected by Chelsea. I'm not aware of any such player, never mind the whole host of them there would have to be if that was indeed Chelsea's method. There are many attributes which allow footballers to make a contribution at professional level, but suitable technical ability is by far the most reliable of these. Everybody knows this, including Chelsea's academy staff.

    I believe that, just like City or any other club, Chelsea retain the best players they can as lads move through the age groups. Just because a player is big (and I don't buy the notion that our young players are all huge, while yours are all tiny) does not mean that he is not also talented. Chelsea's latest FA Youth Cup winners don't include talents at the level of Foden or Diaz, but how many academies in Europe do? Across the whole eleven however, I thought we had the edge on ability. I suppose it is possible that I am seeing things through royal blue tinted glasses but it must be equally likely that a City fan dons light blue shades when assessing City/Chelsea development games.

    As for the age of last night's line ups, Chelsea started with two sixteen year olds, four 17 year olds, and the rest were all teenagers too. This was a younger side than would normally be the case but, although there are sometimes exceptions, Premier League 2 football features very young sides right around the clubs.
     
    Last edited: 12 Aug 2017

Share This Page