Chelsea’s loan system supplanted the Academy, but they cannot admit that

Chelsea have transformed themselves into a powerhouse capable of challenging for every trophy, but they have not integrated a youth team player into the first team for 17 years. So, why should Chelsea persist with a counterproductive model it does not believe in?

The Carabao Cup is hardly interesting in and of itself. For Chelsea fans, though, it brings a certain amount of excitement to see several of the youth players in competitive action. In the days leading up to the match with Nottingham Forest, that excitement peaked with anticipation for 17-year-old Ethan Ampadu. The fixture was not about advancing to the next round, but whether some of the most exciting talent in the English youth setup would get a chance to shine.

Despite the buildup, Antonio Conte, for the most part, started the match with first team players. Charly Musonda’s goal, on his full debut, and the appearance of three teenagers from the bench were promising signs, but Chelsea’s record of bringing youth players through is concerning.

Dominic Solanke joined Chelsea at the age of eight, and was one of the shining stars of Chelsea’s academy for several seasons. He won the Golden Ball at the U20 World Cup last summer. By then, however, Solanke had already agreed a move to Liverpool in the hope of more playing time. He has already earned more competitive minutes with the Reds than at Chelsea, and the season is only a month old.

Must Read: Seven free signings Chelsea should aim for next summer

Nathaniel Chalobah’s departure was more of the same. Here was an academy graduate on the cusp of cementing his place in the first team only to be shipped out and replaced by Danny Drinkwater. Chelsea officials regularly speak of integrating academy graduates into the starting XI, yet John Terry’s breakout 2000/01 season is the last example.

Just for context, 17 years ago AOL Instant Messenger was still a thing, George W. Bush was Time’s Man of the Year and Blockbuster passed on purchasing Netflix. Ampadu was just a twinkle in his daddy’s eye. THAT is how long it has been since Chelsea produced a homegrown starter.

Seventeen years without a success is not just failure – it is a culture. A culture that greatly frustrates Chelsea supporters. That frustration comes from seeing the youth teams regularly dominate but rarely send a player to the senior squad. Chelsea’s youth side, for example, has featured in eight of the last 10 FA Youth Cup finals.

Clearly, the club’s scouting network, facilities and coaching staff are some of the best in the country, if not the world. And thanks to the Premier League’s Elite Player Performance Plan, Chelsea can hoover up starlets from other clubs for laughable fees. By the way, thanks for doing all the hard work developing Izzy Brown, West Brom!

More from Chelsea FC News

• Bournemouth vs Chelsea: 1 Blue Mauricio Pochettino should drop
• Bournemouth vs Chelsea: 3 Blues who must start
• Predicted Chelsea lineup vs Bournemouth: Palmer starts in 4-2-3-1
• Chelsea sporting directors finally reveal why they sign so many young players
• These 3 new signings may never get a game at Chelsea

Despite all these advantages, another John Terry still has not come through the ranks. For that matter, there has not even been another Carlton Cole. The Blues are doing everything to develop young talent within the academy system. and it still is not bearing fruit at Stamford Bridge.

It has to be asked: why bother if it is not working?

Other teams have identified the futility of developing players within the current system and have adapted. Brentford is a perfect example. After seeing Manchester United and Manchester City poach two of its best two prospects for a total of £60,000, Brentford evaluated its model.

The Bees’ last youth player to feature regularly for the first team debuted in 2005. So they scrapped their youth setup. Those resources instead went to identifying talent that failed to make the grade at bigger clubs. Last season saw four players from its “B” squad integrated into the first team. Newly-promoted Huddersfield Town recently made the same decision.

Of course, Chelsea, Brentford and Huddersfield operate under different constraints and expectations. Chelsea is notoriously focused on present results. The last 10 years have seen 10 managers (not counting Ray Wilkins’ and Steve Holland’s brief caretaking).

A heavy investment in youth development is an incongruous long-term project. Why would a new manager risk blooding youngsters in consequential fixtures? It is building toward a future he will never get to see. This is why Alexandre Pato has more competitive minutes with Chelsea than Solanke. The focus on immediate results is also why Chelsea has won more titles than Arsenal since Roman Abramovich took over the club.

So, why continue trying to develop players in house? On the one hand, the structure is already there and, surely, it is only a matter of time before it comes good. On the other, after 17 years of no results this line of thinking is a classic example of sunk cost fallacy. The more money Chelsea plows into youth development, the harder it becomes to dispassionately evaluate its efficacy. On some level, the board has recognized this.

Chelsea’s solution has been to exploit the loan system. Despite the amount of rancor it inspires in pundits and some fans, the success rate is much better than the academy. Thibaut Courtois, for example, was a talented young goalkeeper at Genk. A loan to Atletico Madrid was the perfect finishing school. He rejoined the club and immediately unseated Petr Cech. Victor Moses’ unexpected emergence last season could also be counted as success of the loan system. It allowed Conte to tinker with random spare parts the club had retained. Andreas Christensen’s appearances this season already mark him out as this season’s loan success.

The loan army also turns a regular profit. Of course, a club’s raison d’être is not to make money, but to win trophies. The money is merely a means to acquiring the best possible players to ensure success.

Football is a global game, and surely it is better to scour the world for the best of the best than to simply focus on London’s catchment area. The loan system allowed Chelsea to identify and acquire talent like Kevin De Bruyne and Romeulu Lukaku (before a certain Portuguese shipped them out), and it should warrant more praise.

The argument to continue to pour time, energy and effort into developing homegrown talent is usually an emotional one. An emotional argument is not invalid, but it is much more difficult to evaluate. How do you measure a club’s identity? By any data-driven assessment, Chelsea’s youth setup is not succeeding in its goal to provide players for the first team. The argument to keep the doors open at the academy is not based on data points but notions of identity and tradition. Homegrown players add both and give supporters a touchstone.

Unfortunately, the romantic notion of identity does not often translate to success on the pitch. Just ask Queen’s Park of Scotland. It has remained steadfast in its tradition of amateurism in the age of professionalism and has not won any major honors since the 19th century.

Next: Alvaro Morata injury to test Chelsea and the lack of squad depth - again

Chelsea decided long ago to chase success rather than solidify tradition. Indeed, the maniacal quest of winning everything IS Chelsea’s identity during the Abramovich era. This is the greatest period of success in the club’s history, and no local lads have come through the ranks. Calls to integrate more youth players are a solution in search of a problem.