Ok. So pointing to clubs that have achieved what you call seamless rotation should be easy then? And teams that do that whilst being good at player development should be fairly simple. Who are these teams?
It isn't easy at all. You ignored (or perhaps just overlooked) my earlier description of how hard it is. Bielsa-esque tactics demand perfection; seamless rotation is perfection. It is very, very rare to find a club that can achieve it. However, all clubs *strive* for it, because it's the obvious objective to have when building a squad. Hence, I could point to any number of clubs and say 'they've got a good squad that could feasibly be easily rotated while also allowing for youth development', without describing the 'ideal' for such things because it's hard to do and striking the balance requires the right blend of rotational options and managerial talent. Liverpool, for example - they have a good academy that's produced the likes of Ibe and Ojo in recent times, and they've bought players like Can, Coutinho and Sterling that they've afforded major game time to by dint of their talent (with Sterling fetching the club an awful lot of money via his sale). That did not prevent them strengthening their squad with major signings, both first-team and rotational. Theoretically, they had a balance between youngsters being given first team roles and a rotational bench to call upon when necessary that could keep up Liverpool's style of play, but they were let down by Rodgers turning out to be a bit crap and his signings mostly likewise, save for players like Firminho who are now roaring into life under a genuinely good manager.
It's hard to do, I never, *ever* said it wasn't. But that's what we should aim for, IMO. Other teams try and fail to achieve the same seamless squad, but can't I think higher of our management and executive staff?
Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project seem to aim for this sign players for the first team and achieve a group of players that can seamlessly rotate. And it's ended up with a huge turnover for them whilst their development has suffered. Fact remains that most of the big teams in England and around Europe have been fairly poor at youth development in recent years. I pointed to some teams I think have been an exception in Atletico and Dortmund.
Not sure about your Vietto example at Atletico. From what I can tell he was signed a year ago for a solid chunk of money? I'm not saying they're perfect in terms of youth development, but they seemingly accept the risks and downsides to including younger players in important roles in their team even after they've experienced success.
That's what I've been trying to show you; they often don't. Jan Oblak, your shining example of Atleti trusting the youth, didn't make his league debut until the 24th of March, 2015, eight months or so after being signed as the most *expensive* La Liga goalkeeper of all time. Who played ahead of him? Miguel Angel Moya, the grizzled veteran. Vietto was Atletico's Alli, a wonderboy signed to be successful; he got about ten games' worth of scattered minutes, was frequently dropped for Torres (the ultimate old rotational player made flesh), looks broken and will probably be loaned out or sold with a buyback option this summer. Manquillo, Baston, Guilavogui, Oliver Torres, (looking further back) Adrian (who had to kick his heels behind an ageing Jose Antonio Reyes, himself second choice, for most of his spell at the club)...Atleti seem like the posterboys for promoting youth players into the first team because they sign a lot of them (often for huge fees) and produce quite a few. But for every Gimenez, Saul or Koke, there's a Manquillo, Baston or Guilavogui, talented youth players unable to get a game because of the (yes) *rotational*, often older players signed deliberately to beef up Atleti's bench, ranging from Torres to Filipe Luis and Agusto Fernandez.
Atleti don't sacrifice signing rotational players for youth products. Not by a long shot. And, if you'll look, neither do Barca, another noted example of supposed youth focus over signing strong rotational options. Both are enormously successful despite this.
Alli started really quickly. But you don't see the similarities between what you're saying and people saying that we need to sign more experienced players to play while Alli develops? But he's a special talent for sure. A special talent that I think would have been much less likely to make a quick impact had he signed for Chelsea, City or Liverpool at the time he signed for us. Because their approach was not one to trust in young players the way Pochettino has with us - the way I think we should look to continue to do.
I am *not* saying Poch's propensity to trust in his youth players is wrong, it's great and long may it continue. But Alli in particular is a special talent, and would have been anywhere he went; him starting for us was assured the minute he looked like a man amongst other men against Madrid in that friendly. I don't know what 'people' say, if we sign a player that good, I want him to play, and I trust the coaching staff we have now to make that call. In the case of Alli, he offered an instant net benefit to our side; it wasn't a case of playing someone else *while he develops*, he was already better than all of the other options for his place in the side *right then*, before he'd even started developing at Spurs.
Understand; if we have or buy a talent as good as Alli, I'd want him to start, since he's the absolute best option. We are in no disagreement there. Our issue seems to be limited to how many of the players beyond the first eleven are rotational, able to slot quickly and efficiently into the side, and how many are youth teamers, who bring long-term benefits at the cost of short-term regression; I err towards the former bring greater, and you prefer the latter.
The rotational players I want don't have to be signings (Pritchard and possibly Carter-Vickers could do it next season, IMO), and they don't have to be old or expensive (how old or expensive were Trippier and Davies when we bought them)? They are usually more expensive than not, since the list of attributes we need is quite long these days; but they don't have to be by any means.
They do have to be either able to a) slot seamlessly into our playing system without loss of effectiveness if they're senior players, or b) slot into the playing system with only a manageable loss in effectiveness, while passing relatively ably for the first-teamer they're replacing, if they're youngsters.
That isn't a radical approach, I think. But it's one we must adopt if we're to beat what Verheijen thinks is a systemic issue we have and win titles and cups while being as relentless in the 38th game as we are in the 1st.
And, incidentally, I really do think Poch will surprise some people in the summer. He broke Soton's transfer record to sign Osvaldo, and signed Wanyama, Ramirez and others all on big money by their standards despite possessing an already deep-ish squad and raw youngsters available to develop in those positions (Reed in defensive midfield, Ward-Prowse in attacking midfield, a young striker whose name escapes me but was probably 'Harrison' up front). I don't think he's as wedded to the idea of blooding youngsters at a cost to club performances as people like to imagine he is, and that's okay, IMO. Developing youngsters is a massive part of what we do now. But that should happen in an environment of constant competitiveness as well; it's hard, but that's really what we should be trying for.
Edit; Ryan Seager. That's his name. Not 'Harrison'. Ryan Seager was (and is) the young striker Poch overlooked while bringing in Osvaldo to fill that gap.
