Too many Forest fans will always blame the players as they seem unable to believe that it can be anything to do with Davies. Davies can't get the best out of certain types of players, end of.
The lad's age is forgotten too. Yes he played well for us - sometimes. He was also ill-disciplined and got sent off, gave the ball away and put in some feeble powder puff tackles from time to time. He's far from the finished article, but his obvious class, vision and touch ought to make him into one of the country's very top players within the next decade. Like usual, Forest fans are eating shhit.
If the opposition had, lets say, a "robust" midfield, then NC had a tendency to disappear from the game. Happened versus Jedinak and Garvan for Palace in the Play Off Final. I don't know how Forest set up, what they are asking him to do, or how Yeovil pressed? I can see what Forest fans meant, as NC would have a good game and then a completely ineffectual one. Last season, you didn't know if the good NC was going to turn up. Rose tinted glasses by some in hindsight
Who would enhance Chalobah's career more, someone who played 35 times for Italy and was acclaimed as Chelsea's greatest ever player, or someone who played most of his games for the mighty Dunfermiline and Motherwell? At the end of the day Chelsea seem to have only been interested in finding any club that would pay all his wages. Another reason could perhaps be that the "Special One" wanted Chalobah to see how crap other managers can be.
I'm amazed anyone thought it would work Neandethal of a manager playing robust traditional football & plonk a young physically immature teenager in the middle of it
Questions.... Who was the better manager & who got the best out of players? John Barnes or Graham Taylor? & who was the better footballer? John Barnes or Graham Taylor? ...so in other words I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that.
I hate Davies personally, but it's probably him IMO. The point is though, how good they were as a footballer has now't to do with management ability. As history has shown on countless occasions.
Stupid comment. Far more than Zola just by getting Derby up and has also reached the playoffs 3 other times...
The statistics prove you are right although Davies has been managing much longer than Zola. However surely the original point was who would be the better person to COACH Chalobah. I am sure that Zola can still show his skill and ability on the training pitch whilst I suspect Davies would be more limited in that respect.
Yeah I've also heard this. Apparently he takes too long in the bathroom in the morning due to arguing with his own reflection.
Chalobah just sat on Forest's bench again today and didn't get a run out. Really....what's the point in that? His Forest record to date:- 63 mins v Doncaster 56 mins v Charlton 67 mins v Brighton (sent off) 45 mins v Yeovil
I never compared Zola to Davies I just asked what had he achieved but if you insist on comparing his achievements to Zola's the facts say that he has had more succes thah GZ. But the facts also state that Davies has been in management since 1998. In 15 years he has only reached the play offs 3 times and and gained promotion once despite managing some of the biggest clubs in this division and he has never managed at the highest level apart from a few games with Derby on the back of taking them up before loosing his job. Yet Zola has only had 3.5 years in management yet he has managed at the highest level taking West Ham to a 9th place finish and he come 3rd and reached the play off final in his first season with us
I am not ITK about where NC might go when his loan spell ends next month but again he was only sub on Friday night when they lost at home to Reading-and did not come on so maybe "this isn't working" but what we do know is that -GFZ and Nani wanted him back this season and he wanted to come -Chelsea wanted us to pay a large part of his new wage deal-c £35k pw -Pozzo model is not to pay above certain wage level -largely for dressing room harmony -Chelsea are paying all of McEchrans wages-allegedly -more than NC Given what is obvious to us all over the past two months, if not all season so far, the midfield lacks the ball control/retention and attack minded driving vision which is affecting both our defenders and our lone striker (Deeny). This may be a test of the model but then again not many of us had heard of NC or Abdi or Vydra before the start of last season so we cannot always rely on former players coming back-and i don't mean Tommy Smith !
Be quite annoyed if he ends up there. Chalobah-Abdi-Thorne looks much better already. Time to use some of them good links Zola supposedly has.
Just reading this nice little article with Dychey. He says this 'These young ones are living in a world of madness. There was a player on loan at a Championship club last season on £3,000 a week, and he’s now on £36,000 and not playing. Can’t they come up with a system where they put this money in a trust for these kids, calm their world down and keep them focused on what the real goal is?' Wonder who he might be referring to?
Bit harsh by Dyche, really; Chalobah wanted to come here over Forest, but Chelsea wouldn't let him because we wouldn't pay all his wages. I have no doubt he'd be here right now if Chelsea would have given him a choice. A better solution could be to have a rule which states a youth player going out on loan cannot have any part of his wages paid by the club he is being loaned to. That way parent clubs could choose the best destination to help a player develop without having their heads turned by bean counters. Parent clubs would have to make sensible decisions on how much to pay youth players, since they wouldn't be able to palm the costs off on lower league sides to help maintain their own FFP limits.
I'd go further. Back to a maximum wage. Obviously all European clubs would have to agree. Let's sat a maximum of 7,000 per week in the Prem and progressivle leSS in lower leaGUES. Still much more than any of these players could make in any other career. We need to keep the game afforable for the average spectator.
So why's it harsh by Dyche? It's true, whether he's here, there, playing or not doesn't change the fact that an 18 year old with one good season of senior football has had a 1100% pay rise and is now on nearly £40K a week. It would arguably skew players attitude somewhat. Look at Sanchez Watt, we offered him a deal here once but he turned us down because it wasn't what he wanted, now he's at Colchester probably earning less than what we'd offered him here, let alone what he demanded. Mind you it's hardly surprising comments from Dyche though, I'd imagine he comes from the stock where players under 21 should be earning £150 a week and cleaning everyone else's boots. The whole situation is really bizarre anyway, why would Chelsea of all people need someone to contribute towards their wage bill at the sacrifice of a players development.
Whilst it's a nice thought, it's practically impossible - someone will just reject joining the plan and then offer £7500 a week to these youngsters. Then you'll have an unnatural movement to all of those.
i would have thought that the obvious outcome is the chairmen and suits keeping the difference for themselves. the idea that they would voluntarily lower prices is absurd. i would always prefer to see the money go to the talent on the pitch rather than the guys responsible for securing the official timekeeping partner of ****house utd.
His words: Emphasis mine. My reading is that Dyche is implying that Chalobah isn't playing because he got a fat payrise and now he isn't putting the effort in. I don't believe that's true; the problem is he was sent to a club with a neanderthal for a manager. Chalobah simply doesn't fit their current system. I am 100% certain that if Chalobah had come here he would have played the vast majority of our games this season, hence why I feel Dyche's comments are harsh. It's not NC's fault he got sent to the wrong club. Couldn't agree more, it's completely farcical.
Not arguing with your points. I would like to ask if you think current prices or even increases are sustainable in the long term. Are we near the point where watching is unaffordable to the average fan? It's a genuine question not an argument, I've been out of the country so long and am so out of touch with prices and wages that I can't judge.
Chelsea doing their best to destroy youth development. Loaning out their young players and paying them stupid amounts before the've really made it. Chalobah seems a responsible young man but you can understand why so many fall by the wayside.
