Read on Twitter
I hate how this "if he's good enough, he will make it regardless who we sign" argument. It's literally so wrong and Chelsea fans should know by now. People still don't get that a player who cost the club millions will likely be favoured over a *better* academy player.
When I say Upamecano will block Guehi despite Guehi being a better player for me, I'll have people in my mentions telling me that if I think Guehi is better, surely he will still make it? Both are young, similar height (so a partnership won't work). But guess who will play?
Why would the people who made the signing want to see a 50m player fail? This means that a manager has huge pressure to make a signing perform which will be costly for a *better* academy player. That's why I hate this "you sign them, because we are Chelsea" argument.
If you want the best for the club you don't look to bring in a player who will block a better player in his position, who will likely play a lot more for costing the club money. Why not bring in a player with a different profile instead to what we have?
It's not like we don't have enough examples of this. Tammy despite clearly being our best striker had to waste his time and sit on the bench for an underperforming Werner, just because he cost the club millions. And it's clear that Werner simply works better playing WITH Tammy.
The thing that won't make Werner block Tammy much however is that he has a different profile, which means that a manager can find ways to play those together. Even then though you can see how a youngster has to see his minutes getting taken away simply because he cost us nothing
Tomori is the most obvious example of course. We have 5 cb's at the club and it was Tomori who got sacrificed, because he cost the club no money. Yet we still know however that he's not any worse than certain cb's here.
Another example is Gilmour who might now go out on loan because we can't get rid of certain players. Players who aren't better than him, but we are forced to see in the line ups simply because they are big money signings. But I got the best will make it?
Yes, the best out of the best *should* make it eventually, but the amount of times even THEM can be sacrificed in the short term to see a worse player ahead of him for being a signing. Yet, we can still see certain players who may decide to leave despite being a better option.
Anjorin who is one of the best talents to come out of our academy, a player with an outstanding mentality, is struggling to get game time. Even if in this current time he can make more impact than Havertz has done so far, why would the club play him over an 80m signing?
That's not me even saying that Havertz can not be a much better player in let's say a year. My point is that an academy player can, regardless of how good he is, still be sacrificed for a signing who might not even be as good right now.
Havertz is getting so many opportunities, because the club know how good he can be in a few years. But will some academy players who might deserve it more at this moment, will get the same amount of opportunities? Definitely not.
Just want to make it clear why this "if he's good enough he will make it" argument is stupid. It simply doesn't work like that at clubs. That's also not me saying stop signing players in case people might think that
And definitely don't wanna make it come out like I'm against any signing. It's just stupid to think that an academy player will be automatically favoured if he's better than a signing, it simply doesn't work like that
