most 'know it all' poster
- Oct 26, 2005
Erm..when did I say his failure to play for half a season set him back two years? Makes more sense though than one rash tackle setting back two years mind. I said him going on loan and not playing probably set him for ONE year and that's probably true given he is no closer to the first team than he was a year. Probably less so given Gibson and Cleverley are (wait for the exaggeration) miles ahead of him.Not as stupid as blaming a half season on loan for his failure to progress at all in the last two years.
When young players go on loan and don't get games it's always a chicken and egg scenario. Are they not getting games because they're not good enough or are they not good enough because they're not getting games?
My money's on the former. If you look at the United youngsters who've gone on to be a success (either at United or elsewhere) they've all done really well out on loan.
Rossi is literally the only youngster I can think of who couldn't get games on loan but went on to do (relatively) well. He's the exception that proves the rule and even he had at least one really succesful loan spell before making it (relatively) big.
When players go on loan, for me a bit of luck comes into it. You need to have the manager willing to play someone that doesn't belong to them for short term gain at the expense of a long term benefit (ie play our kids instead of your own). Possebon didn't get much of chance at Braga, only playing one game.
I'm not for one second dismissing the loan system, just saying it doesn't work for every player irrespective of their talent. Someone said Rossi or whoever was the only player we had that he could recall that didn't get games out on loan, when that isn't true.