Didn't get a kick. Again.
Ethan Laird | Bournemouth loan watch
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
I thought this might be the case.
Was playing regularly at Swansea, good performances every week.
Then we take a bit more money and send him to a club with better players pushing for promotion. Now he doesn't play
what a complete waste of time.
We really do make some stupid decisions.
Was playing regularly at Swansea, good performances every week.
Then we take a bit more money and send him to a club with better players pushing for promotion. Now he doesn't play
what a complete waste of time.We really do make some stupid decisions.
No one knows why he was removed from Swansea and sent to Bournemouth, the cynics will say it's because of more money, but does anyone really know?I thought this might be the case.
Was playing regularly at Swansea, good performances every week.
Then we take a bit more money and send him to a club with better players pushing for promotion. Now he doesn't play
We really do make some stupid decisions.
It seems that 'conspiracy theories' are rife in the caf as well.
Maybe he was sent as Swansea play a back three, and Bournemouth play a back four, so he would play as a standard full back, not a wing back, or perhaps Parker has decided he needs more from him.
He was injured when he first moved, perhaps that injury needs looking after.
Yes it is disappointing that he is not playing regularly.
well whatever the decision was it clearly wasn’t for footballing reasons.
Maybe Laird wanted to come back to England himself. Either way he’s been badly advised and it’s the wrong decision.
He’s at an age now where he needs to be pushing on if he wants to play at the top level. Being benched isn’t for months isn’t helping.
Why though?
The single most obvious reason why we would have changed the loan is because at Swansea they were using him in a role that doesn't exist in our set-up, whereas at Bournemouth they would play him in the same position that he'd need to play to break into our team. That's most definitely a footballing reason.
On top of that, Bournemouth look likely to be promoted which would be a great way for him to then get PL experience next season if he established himself now. Another footballing reason.
I'd be very surprised if those weren't the two reasons why we made the change. Unfortunately it hasn't gone quite to plan so far (likely due to his injury), but there are 11 games left of the season where hopefully he'll break into the team.
hard to say for sure isn’t it?
all I know is he was playing regularly at swansea and has barely any minutes at bournemouth.
that doesn’t look like a smart decision to me.
You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight though. On the flip side, if he hadn't gotten injured and had established himself in the team playing in the same position that he'd play for us, then gone back there next season and got a full PL season under his belt...we'd all be saying it was the probably the best loan decision we've made in the last decade.
Things can swing on small margins. Right now it does look like it would have been better staying at Swansea, but by the end of the season hopefully we'll be seeing the benefits.
Smith back from injury and starting, Stacey on the bench, Laird left out again. Absolutely incredible.
Someone needs to answer why we moved him from Swansea. Ridiculous.
So with the hindsight of not knowing much at all, you think it’s hard to say for sure, but you’re sure the decision wasn’t smart, and it wasn’t for footballing reasons.
Knowing Bournemoth play with regular full backs like United, and Swansea don’t, do you still think it was because of the money, or rather for footballing reasons?
Hows Laird getting on by the way?
Does anyone know whats going on with Ethan and why hes not playing for Bournemouth? I know he was injured for a few weeks when he first went on loan there in Jan but seems to be not involved in recent squads. I was really excited to see how he would do at Bouremouth as my dad is a big Bournemouth fan so i had said to him how good a young player Laird is but hes hardly played at all!!
Hard to be sureHows Laird getting on by the way?
Oh this one isn't hard, he doesn't play.
As I said before, it was a horrendous decision.
It was the correct decision to send him to a team that was playing with fullbacks rather than what he was becoming accustomed to at Swansea as a wing back. We've always known he was talented going forward but it's important to develop the defensive side of his game as well.
So sending him to a team that was showing interest in him from the championship that utilised fullbacks was the correct decision. Because we aren't going to learn anything more with him being utilised as a attacker in a team that utilised wingbacks where his role was to primarily get forward and support the attack.
So sending him to a team that was showing interest in him from the championship that utilised fullbacks was the correct decision. Because we aren't going to learn anything more with him being utilised as a attacker in a team that utilised wingbacks where his role was to primarily get forward and support the attack.
Daft to send home somewhere he clearly isn't needed and seemingly with no guarantees about game time. Particularly when the coach is clueless about full backs.
How do we know he wasn't needed? It seems like we sent him to a club with a intention he will be utilised as a fullback where a player is tested both in attack and defense. And for some reason the Bournemouth manager hasn't utilised him much, and I have no idea as to why, but the intent to send him to the club was correct imo.
But you can't control the intention of the club you're loaning the player to. Sometimes decisions are made with the correct intentions but unfortunately the manager of the club loaning the player in has different ideas after a period of time. And when that happens a good intention can look like a bad decision.
Take Pellistri as a example, we sent him to Alaves last season and they were very happy with him according to Les Parry who is our loans manager. And they (Alaves) were very keen to have him back for the following season. But unfortunately for him, he hasn't played much this season in a team that is struggling but has played for Uruguay and impressed.
It's hard to predict a loan, and sometimes a decision may look good in theory but could also look bad with the benefit of hindsight.
Last edited:
Seems to me you’re conflating decision with result. The decision is made in context, based on reason. The result depends on a heap of factors that are not evident at the moment of decision.
You’re original claim wasn’t that you were psychic and knew the result in advance, but rather that you could see no reason in the context to make the decision to switch loans. You were provided a few good reasons: To try to give him praxis in a role he would be relevant for at United, and improve his defensive capabilities. These reasons don’t evaporate because of the result, that he because of some factors that we know (injury) and some that we don’t, isn’t getting the game time he and the club surely expected.
Unless you were aware of some reasons -already apparent at the time of decision - why Laird would not get game time at Bournemouth, I think ‘hindsight is easy’ covers your claim that it was a bad decision.
Finally someone who knows the ins and out of Bournemouth in this thread. What do you know about the coach and his history with full backs? And they had ample cover on RB? I knew little about their options, tbh.
All I know is that there is no such thing as a guarantee of playing time. It would actually be rather mad if there was.
He probably isn't that good.
The manager always knows best. Scott Parker has my full backing
The manager always knows best. Scott Parker has my full backing
You can include financial penalties if they don't play a certain percentage of games / number of minutes. I think Pellistri has some sort of clause like that in fact.
And ref Bournemouth I know they've got a lot of defenders including 3 LBs and Jack Stacey at RB who is quite experienced. And Parker consistently chose Robinson over Bryan at Fulham because he's more physical, ignoring the fact he's also worse at almost everything else.
It's going to be one of:
- Laird a bit naive at defending so Parker doesn't trust him yet
- Parker wanted a different player, possibly a permanent signing, and now is using this opportunity to make a point
Probably the first option, but hopefully they are working on it in training and it's a character building time for him.
- Laird a bit naive at defending so Parker doesn't trust him yet
- Parker wanted a different player, possibly a permanent signing, and now is using this opportunity to make a point
Probably the first option, but hopefully they are working on it in training and it's a character building time for him.
Well, those are interesting facts. Pellistri goes along way then to show that it’s not possible to guarantee a loanee playing time.
That Bournemouth have Jack Stacey on RB … would we expect Laird to displace him at this point? Hard to tell for me, that depends on how well Laird has developed defensively during his stint with MK and Swansea. If he’s not good enough to normally oust Stacey, then the United road is longer for him, and he should probably be redirected to a loan at a League One top club who plays four at the back. I couldn’t tell one way or the other.
I’d need more evidence before condemning Parker as a dimwit over RB’s though, even if the Robinson case might stack against him.
He’s nursing a hamstring injury he’s had for years. He isn’t fit.
Marco Silva also plays Robinson over Bryan. I guess he’s clueless about fullbacks as well and just stumbling his way to league champions.
There's a few reasons why he isn't getting the game time at Bournemouth, but the main one is fitness.
Parker rates Laird but has stated previously that fitness is a concern with him.
Parker rates Laird but has stated previously that fitness is a concern with him.
Well that to me is crackers but there you go.
Got a start today!
Looks like the recurrent injuries may be catching up with him eventually. He's looking less and less of the potential he was, with each game I see now. Anonymous display so far today.
He's not been anonymous at all.
How has he been playing mate?
Curious to know how the boy did.
And did he play rb or lb?
And did he play rb or lb?
It was an awful game and he didn’t rise above it in any way. He played RB.
Right back. Solid and tidy on the ball from what I saw. He created their best chance first half.
He played right back. Was a pretty boring game. He did ok, but nothing to be overly excited about. Considering it was his first game for quite a while, can't complain.
Also need to bear in mind that Swansea played him as an out and out wingback with next to no defensive responsibility so this was really his first start of the season as a conventional RB in a back 4 so you would not expect him to be pulling up trees. Provided he gets half a dozen games now in that position it will at least salvage this loan and give us a better idea of how he would fare in that role next season.
He's barely played for months. Which games are you referring to?
Good question
This is why I always find the caf hilarious when they say we should be playing players doing well at underage level etc.
It’s a different ball game stepping up to professional football at this level
It’s a different ball game stepping up to professional football at this level
Bit of a weird take. Hes been really good this season and then we moved him to a side where they has good cover for his position