Both Obika & Hutchinson have been at their respective clubs since they were young kids.
Obika has yet to kick a ball in anger in the Premier League and he will be 24 late this year and has been at Spurs since he was nine. Hutchinson is a year older and has played just five times for Chelsea - and only started once in the PL.
I suspect PL Clubs keep these players on the books to boost their homegrown quota. But surely there comes a time when the player has to realise that the chances of him actually breaking through are virtually non existent and if he is serious about a career in the game he has to drop down a level.
Admittedly Hutchinson "retired" at one point but has come back and been out on loan. I use him and Obika as examples but, if I delved deep enough, I'm sure I could find loads of others.
I would go as far as to say the longer that situation goes on the more certain that the career is likely to come to a grinding halt. Relative wealth gained plus the realisation that you won't make it at the highest level = time to retire.
So what would do in the same situation because, above all, I'd want to be playing football?
0
Comments
Sam Hutchinson will give a bit of slack to as he did retire and was working as a coach @ Chelsea but surely he should be thinking of playing now if he's fit
My view is that the authorities need to keep an eye on this situation because the big clubs almost want to stockpile young players . So not content with stealing our youngsters from the academy,the elite clubs also want to deny us the chance of rescuing and developing some of their promising players who might not be quite good enough to make the breakthrough at a young age.
I think the likes of Arsenal,Chelsea and Spurs try to keep these players until they are 24 so they can claim development fees for them .We saw last season how Spurs demanded a fee for David Button even though he had only played 8 minutes for them in their first team as a sub in the League Cup and a year later would have been over 24. Similarly Ben Alnwick is 27 and has played less than 100 league games .Neither of those cases are good for the player or for England internationally as when they are finally released they will not have the same potential .
Clearly Obika would have benefited if Spurs had released him last year and allowed him to join us permanently. This might have given him the chance to develop into a player who could one day play at the top level. The ages 20-25 are key in a players development. I can't believe he has improved in the last year.
Our current skipper Johnnie Jackson was 24 when he left Spurs permanently. He admits that he probably stayed at Tottenham too long . Could JJ have been a better player had we had him earlier as a lower Premiership team as we were then or a championship side had taken him ?
Sam Hutchinson, now 25, signed a two year contract with the Owls in the summer and played in their first three games this season but is now injured again.
Obika never made a PL appearance for Spurs. Hutchinson started just one game for Chelsea.
Scoham has mentioned the example of Simon Dawkins who, at the age of 26, permanently signed for Derby from Spurs where he had been since a kid and had never made a single appearance for his boyhood club.
Another one, Michael Mancienne, played 31 times for the England U21 team and was included on one occasion in the full England squad whilst "at" Chelsea. And yet in the whole of the time he was there he started just two PL games. Eventually he left for Hamburg and is now at Forest. That is a far cry from Chelsea in the Champions League or playing for England.
As Richard J indicates above, all this does make you wonder who is using who here and whether it is the need to retain the right quota of home grown talent that is influencing PL Clubs to hang onto players who have absolutely nil chance of making it at their "parent" Club. Perhaps that is why Chelsea currently have out on loan (and not sold) the likes of Bertrand, Bamford and McEachran.
Equally, there will always be a scramble from the Championship clubs desperately trying to get these youngsters on loan. Which is why it would be good to secure a tie up with a PL Club - and not one as tenuous as our infamous link with Liverpool. Remember this:
"The two clubs also revealed that they are in talks over "a strategic partnership involving the development of players in both directions" following Shelvey's move to the Barclays Premier League."
Really? OK thanks for Nathan Eccelstone anyway.
Arsenal wouldn't be a bad option. They must have loads of kids nowhere near the first team but more than good enough for the Championship. What chance have their midfield/forward prospects got with Wilshere, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Arteta, Ozil, Rosicky, Walcott, Sanchez, Gnabry, Ramsey, Carzola, Flamini, Diaby, Podolski, Giroud, Sanogo and Welbeck? That's 16 players when all fit for just six spots.
Come on Arsene you know it makes sense - remember how we looked after Alex Song for you.
That Joel Campbell would be a good start imho ;-)