| Is it wrong to love the club. on 23:17 - Dec 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I used Sorinola (and Liard) as an example of a player signed on loan who is now available for free as a permanent signing if he was ever thought to have potential. He was a failure of scouting. Loans like this are a waste of time. Players can develop fast at that age Goykeres being an example.
Sheehen for his possible last game with nothing to lose picked seven players who are considered defensive players leaving Patino (rated by Juventus at £30m+ ) and Bolasie on the bench.
Loans and defensive cautious tactics fall into the remit of management and into the remit of Coleman and Gude. The club is suffering from a short termism and timidness in the training centre and on the pitch. Exactly the weak company "Culture" that the club do not need.
I have characterised the use of upto 5 young loan players as a quick fix 'aspirin' solution to long term issues of decline. Cooper left no legacy, Martin left decent players like Darling and Wood.
Martin talked about weaning the club off 'aspirin' loans. This has not happened. The issue should be in Colemans in tray. |
It was quite likely the ‘quick aspirin’ final push that got us into the Premier League. Without Borinis 6 goals in 9 games and allowing us to use Dobbie and Pratley differently, who knows what would have happened? Brendan Rodgers certainly wanted it.
Our two best seasons since relegation were built on loans. We came up just short, but at least they put us in with a shout.
Of course you’ve got to get them right. Absolutely no point in Sorinolas and Hourihanes, but Guehi, Brewster etc almost got us up. Rushworth may just keep us up.
Any team not working the system whilst everyone else does, is putting themselves at a disadvantage. |  |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
