₦airaland Forum

Nihilstjnr:
Egbon FBS,

I will continue to say that I am not against youth. Nihilist is best described as pro-TheRightYouth.

I will not deny that mistakes have been made - I certainly don't look back at Lukaku's departure with fondness. KDB didn't exactly look great when we had him, but looking at what he has gone on to achieve, then there is an argument that we could have done better.

But NOT all the youth we have can claim to be mistreated. Bamford is just useless. He went to not one but TWO EPL teams that were desperate for strikers. Palace were playing wingers upfront and in January this year, went to sign Adebayor who last played a competitive match in November 2014.

At Norwich, he only had to compete with 3 strikers that had 10 league goals between them all season. Cameron Jerome had only 3 goals last season. Mbokani had 7. Lewis Grabban had 0. That was supposed to be a through pass for his career, but the boy still couldn't take his chances.

Ditto Chalobah.

I think that esteemed members of the thread like bihkesh, yourself and nateevs are guilty of lumping all these young players together under the catchall of 'youth'

It is important that we separate the chaff from the wheat first, then we can start a proper disvussion about the way forward with youth.

Saying things like Charlie Colkett( who has not played a single minute of professional football in his life) is better than Dele Alli (Multiple PFA nominations) just makes a mockery of the discussion.

Why even stop at Alli, why not say Colkett is better than Martial and Coman? Sod it, let's go for the nuclear option and call it - Colkett is better than CR7 and Messi.

Now YOU are making a mockery of the discussion. No one has mentioned yet the Charlie Colkett is better than anyone. If anything, we have only said the Dele Alli does nothing we have not see in our youth already. I think you will find those are different arguments.

Nihilist:
This example is very valid.Zouma's price tag is irrelevant. Afterall the likes of Filipe Luis and Baba cost more and did not see shirt.

I'm just pointing out that the excuse that the manager did not know Chalobah is irrelevant -how many managers know the players they get? Does Conte know him now?

So why should you say that he was psychologically damaged because Napoli manager did not know him?

So once any manager knows Chalobah, he will start to play well abi?

How can price tag not be relevant? How many kids at 19 are sold for £12m? In fact, in football after talent is considered, age is a direct reflection of transfer value. Where that ceases to be the case, the subject in question falls under exceptional. You cannot expect a 19-year-old Messi to cost the same as Charlie Musonda. Why? Exceptional.

So when a Messi at 19 costs his new team £12m, he goes there, in the worst case scenario to be at the door of the first team and in the best case scenario, to play. Not to announce himself to the manager. He's already known quantity. Very different from the case of Chalobah.

Why are we bring Luis into this? Does Zouma(19) at £12m and Luis(28) at £12m mean the same thing in football?

So why should you say that he was psychologically damaged because Napoli manager did not know him?

It's not what I say, it is what can happen. Moreover, I tried to push the point of the manager having no need for the player (and hence no requirement to field him). I tried to make that clearer than the "psychology" point of view but you have clearly omitted that.

Now deliberately fusing the psychological element into it, when a manager declares that they have no imperative to develop players from other clubs, and furthermore states that you (loan player at 20) stand no chance, one will be grossly simplistic to claim that this is incapable of denting a 20-year-old's confidence, thereby affecting them psychologically.

How is this not clear?

Nihilist:
I thought we were discussing Chalobah and Alli. Musonda and Kalas is a different discussion. I didn't not know you were trying to have a wider discussion about youth players.

In Alli's case, this is not about 'having confidence to play him'.

Alli scored 16 goals for MK Don's in his final season from midfield and made PFA team of the year.

It is not Pochettino's 'confidence to play him' that made Alli displace Bentaleb from midfield and later push Eriksen out of the number 10 position.

It is not Pochettino's confidence to play Alli that made him contribute 19 league goals in his debut season.

It is not Pochettino's confidence to play Alli that made Alli score a long range Golazo against France on his first start for England

It is not Pochettino's confidence to play Alli that made Alli the PFA Young player of the year and the youngest member of the PFA team of the year in his debut season.


It's like buying Diego Costa and then saying Jose had confidence in him that's why he scored 19 goals in his debut season

When you're good, you're good.Pochettino did not give him a chance - look up the interview- Alli turned up to the Spurs training ground already better than the people there. Poch would have been foolish not to play Alli sef.


Alli is better than Colket Baker and any other name you mention from that academy. That is that.

Mate what are you on about? Dele Alli scored 16 goals for MK Dons and that's automatically why Pochetino has to play him? Really?

2012/13 Patrick Bamford scored 18 goals for MK Dons. 2014/15 Patrick Bamford score 17 goals for Middlesborough. Same level of football Dele Alli was playing at. Guess what the difference is? Do I still need to spell it out? Well I will . . . One signed with Chelsea.

Whether you want to gloss over this detail or not, there is the extra hurdle of the Manager of the PL side making that crucial decision - deciding to play the player. No matter how much you ridicule this, it is an important element in the life-cycle of the development of a young player. That is a massive psychological boost given to Dele which has allowed to him to build on his previous success.

At Chelsea, we went to buy Eto'o and brought Didier back then sent Patrick back on loan.

What is hilarious is that I know you are going to come back and tell me that Patrick Bamford is not as talented as we think (after 37 goals). Yet in the same vein argue that it is in fact, Dele's ability, that is responsible for scoring 16 goals for MK Dons. Seriously?

You think Dele would have walked into the Jose Chelsea side and gone on to become who is his now? Jose was manager of Chelsea when Dele was recommended to Chelsea by Eddie Newton, why didn't Jose veto and ask for him? Were all the accolades hidden to the echelon at Chelsea? Chelsea declined but Jose did not want. Chelsea and Jose reportedly categorized Dele as, talent-wise, not being anything better than what we've got in the academy. And somehow, you are now trying to tell me Dele had been extra special all along?

That's to tell you that it is not based on talent alone but that, in fact, the manager - Pochetino in this case - that should take the glory for giving the young boy confidence to do it.


These are the inconsistent decisions you reach when you apply simplistic ideas to youth development.

Nihilist:
I would also like to point out that Jose had never heard of Zouma when we signed him. Look.up his interview.

Zouma made sure thar Jose knew who he was. Zouma was 19.

Ori yato si Ori mehn. Forget story.

Sorry but that is a flimsy example. Kurt Zouma came in at £12m. That's the same amount (inflation aside) that we paid for Arjen Robben. As a matter of fact, Zouma will be given an acid bath if he wasn't closer to the first team than all academy players. And so will Jose for not playing him. Why did he cost £12m ?


And also, you bringing up this example, means you didn't digest totally the crux of the argument. Loan player vs permanent.

Nihilist:
Dele AllI was in tge PFA team of the year before he even went to spurs sir. So you cannot ascribe his success to Pochettino

Alli is not an academy player. He was a first team member of the MK Dons side that romped to the league 1 title that year. The same team that put 4 past a Manyoo side in the FA Cup.

OK Alli does not have more talent that Colkett, Baker and even my mother. Yet Alli is an integral part of a Spurs side that doesn't have a single academy player outside Kane in the first team. And he met Kane as a star there. The manager reputed for developing Young players could not develop a single academy player. Alli leapfrogged the likes of Bentaleb and Mason in his first season, and those are academy grads who were playing first team footy for spurs the year before...is it beans?

I don't see how a loan to Napoli is a blow to any serious player's self esteem. Napoli are not even on the same spectrum as Chelsea. If you can't handle the mental pressure there, is it now at Chelsea that your head will be correct?

Nateevs please please please like James Brown, take a chill pill.

If you've got it you, you've got it - there's nothing simplistic about that. You guys said the same thing about Bamford. You even said he was a crespo kind of player. He shined at championship level, moved to two EPL teams and flopped like a high jump.

I'm sure it was the psychological effect that kept him from scoring goals too.

If you want to make an argument that Chalobah is a late bloomer like Drogba, then you might have a point.

I suppose the question in that case is how long should we wait for him to bloom? A year? 2? 10? A lifetime?

Ori yato si ori sir Nateevs. Alli is better than anything you can see in that academy. That's a fact. Give that boy his props.

I am not ascribing Dele's PFA success to Pochetino. I am saying even though Suprs bought him for £5m and loaned him back, when he came back to Spurs, it was down to Pochetino to some up the confidence to play him.

Neither am I calling Dele an academy player. I am only comparing him to our own 20-year-olds.

It will be of no use continuing to argue this point. We will go around in circles until a one manager comes through who has the balls to take one young player and make a pro out of him. Then I wonder what you would say. Did Charlie Musonda not go to Spain and become their best player in half a season? Was he not here playing under Jose's nose for two seasons? If Charlie was playing for MK Dons and Spurs bought him for £5m and then went on to the first team and did wonders, you will be saying the same thing.


Why are you mute on Kalas?

Nihilist:
I'm not sure how to answer this one bros. I've said repeatedly that I don't watch reserve games so I haven't seen RLC at his 'best'. When I've seen him play in the league, he has occupied a spectrum ranging from utter crap to meh.

I mean if the most diehard proponent of youth integraton on our thread had this to say, then who is nihilist to say different.

Easy big fella



Well I watched Watford a couple of times that year. I watched that playoff semifinal against Leicester and watched Deeney break my heart live. Now let me ask you something. Do you remember Almen Abdi? That was Watford's main playmaker that year and the season after. They got promoted and he cant make the team. Ikechi Anya was one of their superstars that year...now he's lucky if he sees a shirt at Left Back. Joel Ekstarand was a defensive mainstay that year and the year after. I don't think he even played last season. Matej Vydra was arguably their best player in thier last season in the champo. I think he's still rotting in the watford reserves.

By Contrast Troy Deeney made the jump. Huerlho Gomes made the Jump.

Chalobah got his chances. Napoli are a big side competing in Europe - what happened? How come he didn't make the Jump? How come did relatively ok in the championship with 3 different teams but floundered when he got to the big boys?

Sometimes, the Championship is where certain players belong.



These are the kind of yarns that irritate me. Dele Alli is not an academy player. Dele was playing in the lower leagues as a professional. When he got his chance he took it. When spurs played madrid in a friendly that year, Alli sharply went to nutmeg Modric. Pochettino said that he was very surprised when he saw Alli in prseason that year because he was fitter than all the Spurs players. Please don't insult Alli by comparing him to Chalobah.

You know how many player of the month Alli has won? You think it's beans to make PFA team of the year in two consecutive seasons?
[img]http://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgWgJictf0TSfLXJf13XUwzTiDr4KsQiVagr-AJxlUFCxqnunY[/img]

You are approaching the business of football with very simplistic ideas - the player either makes it or not. That's not how it works fella. There is also the psychological element to it. And the psychological element can be tutored, nurtured and made to grow. All very dependent on the gaffer who takes control. Dele Alli does not have more talent than Lewis Baker. Anyone can take me up on this.

In fact, Dele Alli has no more talent than Jeremie Boga and Charlie Colkett. FACT! Do your research mate and you will find out Dele was recommended to Chelsea by Eddie Newton but Chelsea declined citing that he was not better than what we already have. These are guys who are paid to sniff talent. This tells you that on the basis of talent alone, Dele was not doing what had not been seen.

Instead, what Dele went on to have, is a manager who is reputed for the development of young players. One who does not believe that Manager's success/failure depends on whether a youngster gets game time.

I ask again, do you think Dele Alli would make PFA player of the year if he were at Chelsea?



Then there is the tactical element to football. Talented footballers may or may not fit into systems for a variety of reasons. One player making the jump may be for a tactical reason. Another not making it does not automatically translate to average talent. Tell me what Didier Drogba was doing at 20.

I digress. For reasons of not making this over elaborate, I will stick to the basic argument.

How do you think Nathaniel feels when he shows up at a club he is loaned to and the manager responds with "I never heard about him" ? Because that is exactly what happened. The Napoli manager had no idea about the loan. When a manager does not know about your loan move, it means simply he doesn't need you. Simple as! Your chances are slim; especially as a 20-year-old. There are documented quotes on the internet, of managers who claim they will not waste time developing talent for another team. Especially ones they cannot buy and retain. The player leaves and it leaves them empty. How do you think this affects loan moves? Is it still as simple?

Compare that with Alli who had an arm around him. Why won't he go out and nutmeg someone? At this stage in a young footballers' life, while a large part of making it is about the size of the talent, it is mainly about the mental preparedness and capacity of the player. And only the first team manager can give this to the kid. No 20-year-old is born with this.

You want to compare that to Jose who will not play a young player in a dead-rubber game then when losing 2-0 in a crucial PL game, he throws in Kennedy, RLC and Traore for the last 15 mins, hoping they will get something. What sort of stupidity is that?



Flash back to 2014, Jose just arrived. Chasing the league. Game away to Liverpool. Crucial game. Possible league decider. All Chelsea defenders were out for this tie. In came a young man in the name Tomas Kalas but I must stress, ONLY because our Mr Jose Mourinho did not have a choice. Kalas (then only 20), paired at CB with Branislav. 'This is your chance son'. . . .We all said. 'Go out there and prove yourself. Do it for all young Chelsea players'.

And he did just that. It was a game to remember. And all those who watched will never forget the performance he (Tomas) put in to stop the then blazing SAS. He almost scored a goal for himself. He was so good, popular websites gave him an 8 for his overall display. Talk about taking few chances. Or so we thought. . . . That will go down in history as Tomas Kalas' last game for Chelsea. Despite that cameo and huge effort put into securing an unlikely 3pts for Jose, he was shipped out on loan in the summer by the same manager.

And you are here telling me Dele Alli took his chances.


FACT! If Dele Alli was a Chelsea player, his confidence will be shot to bits and he will be on loan at the moment to Vitesse. You claim we don't have special talent but the Chelsea academy is reputed for winning back-to-back Youth FA Cups and displacing the best of Europe's academy in all age categories? How is it possible to achieve this consistently without the top-of-the-range talent required to make it to the top level?

bigkesh:
Signing Mahrez isn't bad, but signing him on a limited budget is sick

If we gonna sign Mahrez and still sign the needed players,,no P
But if we are spending the money meant for a CB, Lb and DM on another winger, then I have a problem with that

It's not that simple. The club's transfer targets may not materialise for a number of reasons. What is not in denial are the following facts:

1. We have a manager who knows how to build a team and
2. The club has shown the desire to rebuild.

So we cannot criticise the club in this transfer window for lack of trying. If transfer targets don't materialise and we opt for Plan B, then buying Mahrez at the expense of those positions may not always be a bad idea.

Nihilist:
I think that there are actually two issues being discussed here.

1. RLC has the talent and can come good - I cannot really speak for this. I have not seen him at youth level and his performances at EPL left much to be desired.

2. RLC is fantastic behind a striker, look at his last game for proof.

I think that I should stress again that my main discussion today has been on point number 2. I am not impressed even if he scored 10 against those dead Austrian players. He most likely earns more than all of them plus their coach combined.

I like the line that you stressed at the end of your post. RLC is ONLY 20. But so is Dele Alli. Pierre Emille Holjberg is the same age.

It may seem cynical, but the kind of 20 year olds I think we need are the ones who force us to think how mature they are for their age, and not the ones that hide behind their age as their excuse for lack of development.

Compare what people meant last season when they said "He's only 20" about Martial to what you meant about RLC and my point becomes obvious.

Now I understand that the likes of Martial and co have had opportunities to play first team football that RLC might not have had...which is why I want him to go out on loan so badly.

The likes of Ake and Lukaku were the ones who asked to go on loan to develop further. . Jose mentioned his name with the likes of Solanke etc who could be stars of the future. RLC is the only one of that group sat on the bench stagnating.

I'm not suggesting RLC is not as proactive with his career as those other guys. because I'm not privy to what goes on behind the scenes, but his body language on the pitch regularly seems to portray the image of person wey don bellefull

All I see on the pitch is a lazy looking guy, who I'm told has bags of talent that I've never seen.

Dazall.

Like I said, you are not saying about RLC that no one doesn't know. What is surprising is denying the talent he has.

I for one, really hope Conte does not view young talent through the same eyeglass. This will be catastrophic. Same way Jose was viewing Chalobah seasons ago. On that subject, do you know Nathaniel Chalobah Nihilist? If you did, he's probably on your "he's not special" list. However, this video below (I have posted this once here) shows you what Nathaniel was doing at Zola's Watford 3 seasons ago until he was not integrated by Jose and sent out on a series of useless loans.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiE5IlBTdM



Now, this kid may not have shown this composure on the ball consistently, this does not mean he does not deserve chance after chance to show he does.

Tell me Chalobah cannot do a job on this back of this video. Has Dele Alli shown more technique, composure and talent than Chalobah? If Dele was a Chelsea player, would he be in any first team now?

Ibime:
I take Mahrez and sell all our other wingers.

Exactly bros! I wonder why Diggz keeps asking what we are going to do with the rest? There's nothing wrong with a transfer policy that targets Mahrez. When did we stop pursuing genuine talents because we have a bunch of average ones? If that ever happened, that's what we should frown at.

Nihilist:
I didn't think he played too badly myself but I wasn't really impressed either. I think he scored against a relegated villa side though.

I think that my chairman FBS is misunderstanding me. All I'm saying is that I'm not impressed if he scores 10 goals against a team who play on a field in the bush (Google it). If even Mikel can score against them, then kini big deal?

I don't really see how that line of thinking clashes with Contes statement.

I think what FBS is tackling is that we are yet to see RLC as a striker. Now that is different from a No 10 Role or CM/DM position. We all agree that there are elements to RLC's game that need work. He can be lethargic, slow and uninspiring sometimes when you see him. This, however, is very different from talent - of which he has in abundance. To play as a CM, there must be the willingness to put oneself about.

I don't suppose he doesn't know this. I actually heard someone say that perhaps his unusually big frame for his age, may be a slight impedance on running about for 90mins.

Now I have seen RLC in the box a few times and one thing I can definitely tell you is that he has very good movement. Then he has the physique to play with big defenders, the technique to play in tight spaces and raw pace to cover ground. What will be left to see is his propensity to convert chances. So if Conte says he has all the attributes to play as a striker or a support striker, I very much agree with him.

If he scores 3 goals against a nobody, it is welcome. All positives are welcome. It doesn't matter that Mikel scored. RLC is 20 years old.

FBS:
What was I saying yesterday about RLC? That he aint no DM but a fast sonabitaaach up top. Well, Conte, agrees with me on this as he intends playing him as a striker (or behind one) in the future.


#Let players express themselves.

Brilliant observation FBS. I had been thinking this, seeing I saw RLC play up front a few times when he much very much younger. Now I agree that is a brilliant move. Play him up top with a clinical dude and that could be something to look forward to. It will be interesting to see how he uses his height and large frame to create chances.

Bat & RLC in a forward two? Conte is tickling me with new ideas. I am beginning to think this is one fella who is extremely multi-dimensional.

FBS:
THAT is one of problems with CFC and its a MASSIVE one. Looking for the WOW factor in a young player forgetting that it ain't always there at the very first time of asking. And even when its there them go still mess up.

For all we know and no one here can categorically say Rashford is SUPER talented until we saw him play. Irrespective of the reasons why he was played credits to LvG and Manure.....heck he could have used a midfielder as a false 9 or whatever.

Secondly, if and when we play them, its usually out of position. e.g Kakuta. He had the WOW factor, he was supposed to be the next BIG star but what did we do with him? Destroyed him.

Take RLC for instance and I stand to be corrected but imo, the boy is more of an AM than a DM, so why play in that position? A position so glaring to see that he is not interested in playing....fast forward 15 secs...you go dey hear " the boy is lazy..."

Traore, Zouma, all making waves now and godddaaaamit (I stand with nateevs here ) would they have made it to the first team assuming they joined Chelsea aged 11?

Musonda is one brilliant player and I'm personally pleased he is on loan again. Why rot in the reserves when you can give and show so much more?

So don't get me wrong, I support the loan system but things should be done systematically + the risks associated in making bold calls.

Sure the pressure is there...its a BIG club. This is the norm but how can we win 3 FA Youth Cups in a row, 2 UEFA Youth Cups back-2-back and we can't find ONE single player? We can't find a couple of Rashfords?

Away from the Injury topics. Thank you very much FBS.

There is the psychological element to being footballer. For all we know, Zouma may be riding on this - someone showing belief in him and then giving him chance at the right age. It's easy to say Zouma is clearly better than anything we got but someone dared to give him this chance. Plus someone dared to overlook the mistakes he made at an early age. Unless ofcourse we are saying he walked straight into the first team and never made errors.

I don't believe we win back to back to back youth tournaments, yet there isn't one single player good enough? Who declared Rashford a great talent before given a chance? Most of us never heard of him.

Ibime:
If the break is clean, it is easier to fix. That is a very clean break for Ba.

You are right. This what I did to myself two years ago. Still haven't recovered fully. Although you can say I am not seeing the doctor Luke Shaw is seeing.

It's easy to come to such conclusions Nihilist. The real question is, what would have become of Zouma, had he been with Chelsea since 12?

It's very easy to make these conclusions Nihilist. The true question is, would Zouma have made it to the first team if he had been with Chelsea since 11?

Ibime:
Why you no post am here make we see

Information only abeg. Everyone check at your own discretion.

Any one seen Demba Ba's horrific injury?

Warning: If broken legs dey do you worry, abeg no check am.

bigkesh:
I don't think we will sign Mahrez.....
We have other more important areas to Strengthen and paying 50m for another AMF doesn't make sense


I had rather get Lass for free,30 for Manolas and 20 for Schar


We aren't selling Pedro or Willian,no need signing Mahrez

M soo mad we didn't go for Ben Arfa,That is a player on Mahrez level for absolutely nothing

Actually, from a point of view of numbers, it makes so much sense. 17 goals in the league and assist rate I cannot find right now makes Mahrez a necessity. That's more goals last season than Hazard, Pedro and Willian combined. And this is how it has been, aside the anomaly last season.

I have always called 'slim productivity from the flanks' as a major problem we have. So if Conte is looking at it from this angle, then I welcome it.

There's a reason the football world coin extremely productive front threes as a trinity of goals. That's why the likes of Barcelona, Madrid, Bayern et al are almost always there. That's where we want to be. Not Willian and Pedro. Abeg.

These players are very solid back up players that can do a job and work hard join sef. However, to reach elite level in football, we have to assemble a very scary, very technically astute and very productive front three. Then solidify the midfield with strength and creativity.

For all we know, Conte might not even fancy Willian and Pedro. This one wey Cuadrado dey come back.

“I’m very happy the club bought the player,” he said. “He has good technique, fantastic stamina and I like this type of player. We identified him, me and the club together, and I think he can enforce a zone which is very important if we want to play with two central midfielders.”

Conte.



3-5-2 ?

Hmmm.

Haba 2-0.

Who are those playing sef?

FBS:
They are playing in the UCL this season and we are not.


Why? CFC weren't the only big team after him, so why us? Conte or?

He had an extremely improved offer from LFC and he is like a boss in the team. Why Chelsea?

Kante can smell the future. Sacrificing short terms losses for long terms gains.

The dude is a midfielder even in real life.

Kante don land. Best signing so far.

Conte. Kante. Ake. Thread done scatter.

Any left back called Lante or Bonte? Sign him up abeg. I think the clue is in the name this summer?

So it's looking more like we will play a 3-5-2 or 4-4-2 with the rumours of a 60m Euros Chelsea bid for Morata being turned down.

In other perhaps related news, Lazio have reported Candreva has asked to leave.

bigkesh:
Ben Arfa has signed for Barca
Unit has signed for Barca and he is nailed it against the World Champs
Juventus will soon signed Diawara

Barca, Juventus and PSG going for my targets

My 'Aston Villa level' signings killing it....... M a better scout than Emenalo will ever be

When did Ben Arfa sign for Barca?

Ibime:
Lack of UCL qualification meant nothing then. You have to live in that period to know what was important. There wasn't much money involved in UCL till 2003.

This! Money can't buy this. . When we didn't care about the UCL but never forgot every moment of trashing United 5-0.

raumdeuter:
The last paragraph caught my attention

Whats the difference between Barca/Bayern and Chelsea/Inter/Madrid? Madrid is the richest club and the biggest spender in all of Europe, Chelsea was the same in the time of Mourinho

If you can come up with the amount spent by Mourinho in Madrid + Chelsea that would surely dwarf whatever Pep Spent in Barca+Bayern (not even factoring the Inter Milan spending into it

That was my next destination. I just haven't had the time to write. Man dey busy these days. How good were Barca who were previously managed by Rijkaard before Pep took over?

Let me tell you where my assumption came from.

This was dopejemi's question to Bimffo.


And this was your response.



Your post heavily implies that Jose might not necessarily be better than Conte given that Jose has largely outspent Conte throughout their respective careers.

I don't believe you think that Jose is easily a top 3 title-winning manager. I think you believe Jose is only a top 3 title-winning manager when he SPENDS as exemplified in your quote below:

That's the inference you draw from my posts not what I am necessarily trying to pass across. And yes I do believe he is a top title-winning manager (and that's on purpose. "Title-winning" because he is not so much a player/team/club manager but that's topic for another day).

What you don't get is how I am able to conclude that he is a top title-winning manager yet able to criticize his success in the same breath. This is is not an all-or-nothing argument. There are several iterations in between.

Jose is a sure banker to win you the League. But my point tries to focus on how many trophies he really would win if he didn't have as much to spend. It doesn't mean he still not top class. I hope you can consider this stance.

What is my evidence. Two spells at Chelsea where he is given considerable less to spend, all fall to pieces. Remember the Omelette shitzo.

This is how Jose works. He arrives with the guarantee of winning you the tile in the first season. The owners and fans are super excited, they give him all he wants. He gets his millions. He in turn buys almost burnt-out resources. The resources cannot sustain his methods for more than 2 seasons. So he needs to replenish. However there comes a breaking point where the owners cannot sustain the spending season in season out. They want him to cut, manage, promote youth. He can't, he doesn't. They fall out and never wins the league in his third season.

Then he moves on and repeats this all over again.

This is how he works. So my question is, will he actually win the League titles as consistently if he stayed with the same club and did not have as much spending as he does now?

Correct Valid question.

I don't believe you think that Jose is easily a top 3 title-winning manager. I think you believe Jose is only a top 3 title-winning manager when he SPENDS as exemplified in your quote below:

True.

And therein lies the crux of your argument. That Jose is somehow incapable of success without a massive wallet to bankroll it. Obviously, the logical conclusion of this post is that, Jose's input to an expensively squad is negligible to the point of almost irrelevance, as the players he signs should be able to win regardless. And this does Jose a great disservice.

No you are wrong. Not an aspersion of incapability of success but doubt of consistent success.

Porto were 50/1 to win the UCL in the summer of 2003. That's not quite Leicester's 5000/1, but those are still pretty long odds, and as you will undoubtedly know, bookies fix those kind of odds for a reason.

Di Matteo won with possibly worse odds. Chelsea were going out when he took over from AVB. DM might have won the league the season after had he stayed and spent £100m.

It's impossible to say Jose would have definitely achieved the same kind of success with Leicester, but it is not inconceivable. Apart from Jose's track record of success with underdogs, the tactical style that Leicester achieved victory with, is one that Jose made popular. The togetherness shown by the Leicester squad is a hallmark of Jose teams. The way Leicester ground out 1-0 wins is almost a Jose Trademark.

The difference is Jose grinds out wins with a £400m squad. That's not a hallmark. That's a shame. If Jose ground out wins with multi million pound squads, what's to say he would have done it with Leicester?

By Contrast, Claudio oversaw heavy spending at Chelsea and did not win a pin.Jose came and changed the Story. Spent at Juve and Inter and did not win anything.

There are quarters that believe Tinkerman would have done it the next season but I accept the point is debatable.

Similar to the post above, but this example is even more redundant, because United's title victory relied very heavily on signing an injury prone 29 year old hitman with relatively little resale value to deliver instant success. Sound familiar?
It's not fair to cast aspersion on Jose because he spends heavily. Conte has not done anything that Jose has not done before despite having the highest wage bill and spending over 100m last summer alone. Please respect the don.

That's not the point. Jose is one who relies on every department of the team being solid to win. You think Jose will settle for a side that won't spend on a new core but buy just one Striker?

[quote author=diggz post=47256227][/quote]You are on a tangent here. Let's not turn this page into a historical portal. Everyone knows what happened.

The simple question is, how much success would Jose have had if he managed Bari, Atlanta, Siena, Arezzo and Juve?

Honestly. Tell me.

So how can you profess that spending the millions is irrelevant? Jose has never joined a club, post Porto, that has neither the team nor the resources to win the league.

I mean Pep has won what? 17 trophies in his career? But some quarters still believe the jury is out on him.

Why is that?

Nihilist:
This argument has three major flaws.

1. Implying that spending guarantees success.
2. Implying that succesful managers who spend a lot are somehow inferior to successful managers who spend relatively less.
3. The price a player was purchased for is a reliable indicator of their quality.

Alex Ferguson broke British spending records on several occasions, but it would be foolish to compare Ranieri to him on the basis of 'relative success'

Yet we've seen Arsenal, Liverpool and City spend hundreds of millions in the transfer market over the last few years with relatively little to show for it. On the continent, Real Madrid have been struggling with the same problem.

Even Conte with a team of Juve superstars in a half-dead league was unable to translate domestic dominance to European success.

Ranieri didn't spend much relative to the big boys, but the cheap price tags on the likes of Kante and Mahrez does not indicate that these guys are not some cheap trash. Those two would arguably start at any of the usual top 4 candidates.

Would Ranieri have won the league without Kante, Mahrez, and Vardy? Maybe...but I don't see any big teams linked with the likes of Albrighton and Drinkwater. This suggests to me that Claudio was just as realiant on top4 quality players...he just got then for osho free prices.

Jose has gone everywhere and won. He has won in Europe twice. Granted he spends big money, but which big manager doesn't? Pep has managed two of the best teams in the world and still spent heavily there. Conte has already spent 30+ million sef.

The difference between Jose and others is that he is one of maybe 5 managers in the world that can guarantee success after spending wherever he goes. Pep is about to be tested on this criteria now.

I was happy when Jose was sacked because I felt that he was bringing too much negativity to the club. But I can't deny that Jose is the master.

Comparing Conte to Jose is like comparing Alomo to Grey Goose. It's like comparing chewing stick to Oral B toothbrush.

Jose is the master. You need to recognise that.

Personally, I'm not too fussed about Jose joining United, as I'm pretty invested in the Conte Project. But when Jose is next back at the bridge, I will greet him like most other fans did back in 2010...with affection and respect.

One major flaw in all of this is that you have assumed - and I don't know where it came from - that my attempt to bring perspective of spending to the argument, is admittance that Conte is better than Jose.

The second flaw is that you assume that I need to be reminded that Jose is easily top 3 title-winning Manager material. I know this.

What you have not considered is this. Can you honestly, without doubt, claim that Jose will win the League in the same season, same event replicated, with the Leicester squad?

Perhaps too extreme.

Can you honestly say, without doubt, that Jose will win the league with the last title-winning ManU squad?

Is this Witsel rumour true?

diggz:
We are back to the era of mou spending cash to be successful...this is a very useless theory, considering the fact that, he always needed to bring instant successes to each club he has had to manage.

A typical example is he adding a couple of players to the present manU squad to have an instant success. If he goes ahead to do exactly that,na becuz he spend money. If he doesn't, na becuz e no sabi him job!

Well the simple fact is, all coaches buy when they have a need to. Just the same way pep,koeman,ancelloti,lucho,klopp, crazy AVB,diego,mancini, ranieri,Wenger, lvg,conte etc will buy the players which they also need to succeed with. And, the probability of all teams having or needing the same quality/quantity at the same time, can not be the same for each club.

Trying to claim perspective by adding how much was spent on players in each season of every club managed by mou is clearly doing a dayo. No two clubs have the same need to purchase quality/quantity of players at same time. Neither do they require heavy investment to have them competing again.Or Are we now saying if we should place CFC,barca, Bayern,arsenal,manu, atletico Madrid, real,etc. all will have same need to purchase equal number of players in this transfer window? Or try to get equal quality of players into their separate squads? Moreover,we have also witnessed cases of huge spendings done by certain clubs and they still weren't successful.

We can come here to bash mou for being mou,bash him for almost relegating cfc team,bash him for buying falcao e.t.c but, we can't bash him for wanting to succeed with the tools/resources at his disposal to do is job.

This is a massive generalization and deliberate understating of what exactly transpired. There is a difference between buying to add to the squad and having autonomy to change a complete squad.

Chelsea had just spent £115m on players just before he arrived. Upon his arrival, he spent £60m, £120m and £15m in 3 successive seasons.

Over £300m worth of players. This was unprecedented between 2003 and 2006. Nobody spent this type of money. Why do you think there was serious animousity towards all things Chelsea and the constant rhetoric of "Chelsea bought their titles"? That's perspective mate! No just me saying it, but most football fans at the time.

This is what happened is his first era and that my friend, should never be forgotten. Perhaps you were young. You are making the argument of "everybody spends" in the right era - when everyone is spending 100s of millions - and are lured into a false sense of credence.

If you had said this same thing is 2003, there would be fans angry enough to stone you to death.