Mourinho claims Chelsea’s youth policy is better than Arsenal’s
Jose Mourinho adds a twist to our earlier discussion on youth policy by claiming that Chelsea’s approach is far better than that of Arsenal’s.
Mourinho’s just answering questions, and tackling one part of the discussion - but that won’t stop the media or us from taking this as a direct attack on Arsenal’s honour from Chelsea and more fuel to the fire that people assume stands between the two clubs.
Here’s what Mourinho said, comparing Chelsea’s and Arsenal’s youth policies:
“Can you tell me what a player prefers? To play a game here and there in the Carling Cup or be like Lassana Diarra.
He waited and waited for a chance. But he kept working and when he went in the team, he went to stay.
At this moment he is not playing just Carling Cup matches. He is also playing Champions League matches.
So what is the best process? To give them little chances or to work them and put them there when they are completely ready and there is no chance to fail.
Diarra went from being nobody to a Chelsea first-choice player.”
Now Diarra is good, but he’s not that good to be a Chelsea first-choice player. He’s there because of injuries and rotation, just as Aliadiare and Traore are there because of injuries and rotation.
Mourinho’s comments raise an important question though - what policy is better - slowly develop players like Chelsea and Manchester United do, or trust them and throw them in the line of fire as Arsenal have done?
- All of Jose Mourinho’s quotes
- Manchester United 4-3 Arsenal - the kids notch season’s first United win over Arsenal
- Mourinho trash-talks Manchester United for Chelsea’s benefit
- Arsenal vs Manchester United - which club has the best youth policy?
- Chelsea’s 07/08 formations and lineup?
Discussion - 7 Responses
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated (our comments policy).
Ahmed,
JM makes his point far better here.
msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/6518166
Diarra not first team quality? He’ll have replaced Makelele by this time next year, which is no small matter.
I’d like JM to be throwing some of our kids (Sahar, Sinclair, Mancienne, Woods, Stoch, Fernendes, Tejera and Cork are all very good) in at the deep end, but he prefers to bring them through after they’ve been part of the first team squad for a couple of years. But we are starting to put together an excellent system, which is unsurprising given the money available. People sniff at the idea of Chelsea having a youth system, but if things continue as they do, they could be in for a big surprise.
An excellent question. I see advantages to both strategies: The young Arsenal players will remember their Carling Cup run for a long time, and draw on it as a source of pride. Additionally, thay have gained valuable experience playing together that will come in handy in the future. However, it seems a little odd to me to have basically 2 squads, the youth squad, and the regular squad. There is some integration, but not at all the way Chelsea have incorporated Kalou, Diarra and Mikel. I think Chelsea’s approach is a sound and safe one, but Arsenal’s has the chance to pay off huge if the youngsters bond into a well-oiled squad a couple years down the road.
Eietrh way works. Just throwing them into fire and letting them get refined in fire gets more praise. But can’t happen at Chlsea and Manchester United because of Boards, fan and media pressure. Wenger has so much support he can lose 10 nil with kids and no one at Arsenal would really complain if it’s a one off defeat. At Chelsea or United people would call for the managers head. Plus ask for players to be off loaded.
KKII, I guess that’s why I admire SAF so much for his ability to always ‘find that balance’…even though is upsets a person at the time.
At United, losing 2 games in a row, every will hail the club ‘in crisis’. Unlike at Arsenal, if we finnish 2nd in the league, the club’s ‘in crisis’. Unlike Chelsea, if we play 4-5-1, the club’s ‘in crisis’. If you field too many youngsters, the clubs ‘in crisis’, if you field too little, the clubs ‘in crisis’…
How the heck does SAF manage to do it? There’s obviously not much room to manouvre. Your comment somehow made me love him more.
I think both works, if done right.
I will trust JM because I believe that he is one of the best in ‘current football’ in creating stars.
JM in creating stars ?
if it was in the context of creating stars comparing JM to Wenger is a little naive.
I’m finding it hard to find a star player who has done the job for Jose over a 3 year period. He is a good scout. He picks stars but is pathetic in developing footballers. No pun intended.
What about Deco, Carvalho, McCarthy, (atcually more than half the Porto team) Terry, Lampard (both were nothing more than ‘average’ nobodys before he came on board), Joe Cole, Drogba, etc. (Now they are a bit more than ‘average’ somebodys).
How many Chelsea players had a real claim to an England spot before JM? How much profit did Porto make after selling their team (considering how much it cost them to get the team together)? That is what I’m reffering to, not discovering and nurturing a “Wayne Rooney” until he becomes a Maradonna. Know what I mean?