Confused at some of the Potentials of Chelsea's Youth

[Sterling101]

So, as always I begin FM each year with a Chelsea save as they're my club from birth. What struck me was how very stingy the developers have been with the PAs of stars such as Dominic Solanke, Lewis Baker, Izzy Brown and Nathan Ake to name just a few.

Christensen, Solanke, Baker and Ake in particular are shockingly bad for the promise they have shown. I'm not sure why, but would anyone shed light on the thinking in this regard?

The first team is mostly fine apart from perhaps Schurlle being a little worse than I'd have judged him.

Are they all -8 or something? That's a huge disappointment, we are talking about a very dominant youth system having close to zero World Class prospects.

 

[Dunc]

Chelsea are usually the club with the most -9's. I haven't looked at their data yet this year but I imagine it's pretty much the same.

Also, the data won't be from how they have performed this season, but over the last couple of seasons. So their CA will reflect that. If they have been really good for your U21's this season then they'll probably get a bump in the January update patch.

 

[Sterling101]

Chelsea are usually the club with the most -9's. I haven't looked at their data yet this year but I imagine it's pretty much the same.

Also, the data won't be from how they have performed this season, but over the last couple of seasons. So their CA will reflect that. If they have been really good for your U21's this season then they'll probably get a bump in the January update patch.

It looks like we have the fewest this year, though it's not exclusively Chelsea with low PAs - Rossiter doesn't seem to be particularly high in PA scale either. I think I'm gonna start again with my Chelsea save explicitly trying to get the youth as good as possible to demonstrate how underwhelming some of them are. Ake in particular, is so awful, yet he's had the most success in the first team and at youth international level. Confusing stuff.

Note: Unless the thread on the wonderkid sub-forum is not all inclusive, in which case, Chelsea may have more -9's than it seems.

 

[GodCubed]

Every FM player thinks their club has been hard done by. Generally, they're wrong.

Trust me, the researcher for Chelsea knows a **** of a lot more than you. He'll almost certainly be watching every youth game at all levels. He knows what he's doing.

 

[Sterling101]

Every FM player thinks their club has been hard done by. Generally, they're wrong.

Trust me, the researcher for Chelsea knows a **** of a lot more than you. He'll almost certainly be watching every youth game at all levels. He knows what he's doing.

I don't doubt that at all. It would be interesting to hear their thoughts though - since Chelsea have had a large amount of youth competition success in recent years and that, along with occasional viewing of the matches, suggests I should expect a few -9's. But hey, it's probably rose-tinted glasses.

 

[wkdsoul]

No the wonderkid forum is not inclusive there a fair few missing that are appearing on other sites, once the editor is open you should be able to get in a get a full look/report. I felt the same with the increase in MCFC's youth over the last couple of years, unfortunately ours is all under 16 mostly so not in the game..

thank god we get an editor

 

[GodCubed]

I don't doubt that at all. It would be interesting to hear their thoughts though - since Chelsea have had a large amount of youth competition success in recent years and that, along with occasional viewing of the matches, suggests I should expect a few -9's. But hey, it's probably rose-tinted glasses.

-9s are rare by design. If a player is -9, they should be a future world class star, with -10 being reserved for future Ballon D'or level players. So Tielemans, for example, who is starting at Anderlecht at the age of 17. He's the only -10, IIRC. Take some other examples of -9s: Scuffet is starting for Udinese at the age of 18, Umtiti is starting for Lyon, as is Verratti for PSG. -9 includes guys like Deulofeu, Markovic, Bruma, Halilovic and Alexander Mitrovic, players who are commonly accepted to be future world class players but who the researcher isn't quite sold on in regards to exact potential.

Chelsea don't have many of these players. The likes of Chalobah and Ake are good, yes, but they haven't proved themselves at the top level like every other name above. Zouma is -9 because he has done so. Chalobah is -9 (which is a bit of a reach) because despite his lack of experience he is the standout player at every age group he's played at so far. Ake, Baker, Solanke et al are good players who could turn out to be excellent, but it's ridiculous to put them at -9 on the strength of what they've accomplished so far.

 

[icetorres]

As a general statement i feel most people overvalue their own teams youth players, The frequency in which players come through and turn out to be class is very infrequent even when they look great.

Looking at liverpool( my fav team) The only player to really come through and force 1st team football and look like a genuine star is sterling.

Other players have pushed into the team and done well yet actually developing 1st team class players from their youth set ups is quite hard.

The amount of players that people go on about each year as being the next big thing and that particular player actually making it is very small.

Just my opinion.

 

[Novocaine]

I think people have a habit over-estimating their club's youth. Who from the Chelsea youth academy have forged a world-class/great career in the past 10 years for instance? Josh McEachran for example was touted to be the next big thing but he has spent every season on loan at decent to poor sides. A few carling cup/pre season matches shouldn't be the barometer for player potential.

 

[wkdsoul]

Yes, he looking at the stats of the current players in the Chelsea youth which has won the league this year and cup 3 times in 5 years at 21/18 level, not players from 10 years ago. They dont stand out signifcantly from players in their own age bracket despite dominating (for the most part) within there age/talent pool/range.

I hope, thats what hes looking at anyway.

 

[Sterling101]

-9s are rare by design. If a player is -9, they should be a future world class star, with -10 being reserved for future Ballon D'or level players. So Tielemans, for example, who is starting at Anderlecht at the age of 17. He's the only -10, IIRC. Take some other examples of -9s: Scuffet is starting for Udinese at the age of 18, Umtiti is starting for Lyon, as is Verratti for PSG. -9 includes guys like Deulofeu, Markovic, Bruma, Halilovic and Alexander Mitrovic, players who are commonly accepted to be future world class players but who the researcher isn't quite sold on in regards to exact potential.

Chelsea don't have many of these players. The likes of Chalobah and Ake are good, yes, but they haven't proved themselves at the top level like every other name above. Zouma is -9 because he has done so. Chalobah is -9 (which is a bit of a reach) because despite his lack of experience he is the standout player at every age group he's played at so far. Ake, Baker, Solanke et al are good players who could turn out to be excellent, but it's ridiculous to put them at -9 on the strength of what they've accomplished so far.

It makes sense when you put it like that. I wasn't using sarcasm in any response by the way, was just generally interested in the thinking behind it. My expectations were probably increased by the amount of -9's Chelsea had last year aswell as some of the questionable 9's of last year such as Chirivella. Thank you for elaborating on this topic.

 

[Sterling101]

Yes, he looking at the stats of the current players in the Chelsea youth which has won the league this year and cup 3 times in 5 years at 21/18 level, not players from 10 years ago. They dont stand out signifcantly from players in their own age bracket despite dominating (for the most part) within there age/talent pool/range.

I hope, thats what hes looking at anyway.

That is the barometer at which my expectations were set, yes. I am fully aware Chelsea have a bad history of bringing up their own youth. However, recent youth success at U21 and lower has me hoping.

 

[tommo1010]

It looks like we have the fewest this year, though it's not exclusively Chelsea with low PAs - Rossiter doesn't seem to be particularly high in PA scale either. I think I'm gonna start again with my Chelsea save explicitly trying to get the youth as good as possible to demonstrate how underwhelming some of them are. Ake in particular, is so awful, yet he's had the most success in the first team and at youth international level. Confusing stuff.

Note: Unless the thread on the wonderkid sub-forum is not all inclusive, in which case, Chelsea may have more -9's than it seems.

why would you mention rossiter to have an amzing potential ability?? all he has done is play a league cup game at a young age, jay spearing done the same and went on to be an average championship player, frimpong the same for arsenal, more players will turn into spearings than pogbas im afraid. you cant have every player in the game turning into a pogba or messi

 

[wkdsoul]

why would you mention rossiter to have an amzing potential ability?? all he has done is play a league cup game at a young age, jay spearing done the same and went on to be an average championship player, frimpong the same for arsenal, more players will turn into spearings than pogbas im afraid. you cant have every player in the game turning into a pogba or messi

Your comparing the player to the first team and past players. His point is they dont stand out from the level of players they are amongst in the game, despite the team dominating at that level in real life.

 

[tommo1010]

Your comparing the player to the first team and past players. His point is they dont stand out from the level of players they are amongst in the game, despite the team dominating at that level in real life.

ok then my question would be what potential are these players supposed to have? with a lot of these players never having proved anything in the game i think there rated fairly and football manager get 99% of there ratings right. dominating in youth football shouldnt give a player a great potential rating, players that are gonna be world class usually jump from the under 16s to first team anyway.

 

[wkdsoul]

ok then my question would be what potential are these players supposed to have? with a lot of these players never having proved anything in the game i think there rated fairly and football manager get 99% of there ratings right. dominating in youth football shouldnt give a player a great potential rating, players that are gonna be world class usually jump from the under 16s to first team anyway.

Yeah, its all subjective really, they do get most on the nose, andd the editor is there..

 

[Jake]

'Dominating' in youth/reserve team football is the entire thinking behind the negative potential rating for youngsters. Anyone who is looking nailed on to have a fantastic career will have a fixed PA out of 200. Any kid that is still yet to do anything of note in a serious league/international level etc will have a negative PA, -10 being the best. Even a -10 can flop in the game if not looked after properly. If you buy a -9 or -10 and leave them in the reserves with no real competitive game time, then lets say when they reach early twenties they get a major injury, before you know it they are in their mid/late twenties and they haven't really progressed. It can happen.

I think the PA's historically have generally been very accurate. There have been notable and famous goofs (Supat Rungratsamee, Cherno Samba, Moses Ashikodi anyone?) but overall SI get things right so often it is mind boggling.

 

[Dynamo_ZahnZee]

I think people are being a little harsh here. I'd still consider a -8 PA player to be world class if they reach their full potential. A CA of about 150-160 is still very high in my books. You can't judge everyone by the standards of Messi and Ronaldo because they are enigmas.

 

[craiigman]

Lol if we are using under 21/under 18 performances as PA then the like of JET, Afobe, and Aneke would all have been -10's at one point. Those leagues don't really mean anything too much. It's when they play for the first team should they really be considered as good enough or not. Half of Chelsea's youngsters will probably never even play for the first team, even if they are -9 potential quality. Chelsea are not a team to produce their own players, they loan them out and hope someone does the job for them and take them back when they are good or move them on.

 

[Sterling101]

Lol if we are using under 21/under 18 performances as PA then the like of JET, Afobe, and Aneke would all have been -10's at one point. Those leagues don't really mean anything too much. It's when they play for the first team should they really be considered as good enough or not. Half of Chelsea's youngsters will probably never even play for the first team, even if they are -9 potential quality. Chelsea are not a team to produce their own players, they loan them out and hope someone does the job for them and take them back when they are good or move them on.

The logic you're using isn't really applicable. Put some of Chelsea's youth into teams such as OL, Anderlecht, Mid-table sides in Spain etc, and they would play often. I'm not moaning, I understand none of them 'have done it' yet. However, simply branding Chelsea youth as unlikely to get -9's purely 'cause they don't see first team play in one of the top sides in club football isn't fair in any respect.

I do think it's interesting as to how often SI are correct in their evaluations, and I agree that they are often correct - however, there is something to be said about calling out a group of youngsters just 'cause they don't start at top teams; it doesn't hold up in some circumstances.