Can't remember his name but the Citeh youngster that was on loan at Naaarwich last season would be good, he was big, scored a few and has also featured for Citeh this season
Ched Evans (just googled him), also with the signings they are about to make he will not get a look in
After last night's win without any loanees, I don't want any more, whoever they are...Sign them as Charlton players or stick with what we've got. The description of how our guys ran over to the away fans last night warmed my heart - 11 players on the pitch who cared about doing it for the club and for the club's fans, and not just because ''it's their livelihood'' as Parky told us the other day.
Think last night's win throws up a few problems to be honest. I'd be very surprised to see Moo2, Wright and Wagstaff start our next league game, of course, while Basey will be vulnerable too if we bring in a left back. So, our next line-up will be quite different to the one that finally won a match and at least one of those changes will involve a loanee - Murty.
Also, through not fault of his own, Parky has now lost two loanees in Bouazza and, more importantly, McEveley and he will look to replace at least one of them, despite his very limited budget.
I have read on here that Parky has been emphasising loanees in his radio interviews in the past two days so, unless his words were misinterpreted, I think we should expect a couple to come in.
I personally don't mind at least two more loans if they replace McEveley and Murty (as he is presumably off in a few weeks) for the remainder of the season.
BUT I am also expecting at least 2-3 further permanent deals.
I know PP and Murray have mentioned 4-5 signings although that view was possibly prior to the loss of McEveley at least.
Playing any more than two at a time is not ideal as motivation and passion could become factors.
On another tack - I will not be happy if we see both Ambrose and ZZ flogged this window. When fit, both should be in our strongest 16 in my opinion as both have an eye for goal, they are adaptable and at times, at least, have demonstrated genuine class.
[quote][cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]After last night's win without any loanees, I don't want any more, whoever they are...Sign them as Charlton players or stick with what we've got. The description of how our guys ran over to the away fans last night warmed my heart - 11 players on the pitch who cared about doing it for the club and for the club's fans, and not just because ''it's their livelihood'' as Parky told us the other day.[/quote]
I could not put it better, this is the only way forward for us.
I'd like any of these Stoke players: Dickinson, Sonko, Tonge (massively underused player by Stoke imo). The really interesting one would be Cresswell, who i personally don't rate but wouldn't be suprised if we tried for him if Gray goes.
Surely, the attitude of the fabled 'loanee' is purely one of the individual's personal attitude?
And not about tarring all loanees with the same 'couldn't care less' approach.
I never saw anything but a professional attitude with McEverley, always played with drive and determination, gave 100%.
Shame he got injured.
Same with Murty. He's not playing 'only' to get fit for Reading's anticipated promotion run in.
There's the professional pride from an experienced, mature and captain character.
He's an old head, plays football because he can't bear not to be playing, and determined not to let down his old chum Parky.
Young Waggy Waghorn - he might talk funny but how many of you have seen him sweating blood for the shirt? All of you.
Never stops running and trying to contribute. Plays as if he's one of our own kids.
So there's 3 loanees, with the right professional attitude - and all have/will bust a bloodvessel for the shirt.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]Surely, the attitude of the fabled 'loanee' is purely one of the individual's personal attitude?
And not about tarring all loanees with the same 'couldn't care less' approach.
I never saw anything but a professional attitude with McEverley, always played with drive and determination, gave 100%.
Shame he got injured.
Same with Murty. He's not playing 'only' to get fit for Reading's anticipated promotion run in.
There's the professional pride from an experienced, mature and captain character.
He's an old head, plays football because he can't bear not to be playing, and determined not to let down his old chum Parky.
Young Waggy Waghorn - he might talk funny but how many of you have seen him sweating blood for the shirt? All of you.
Never stops running and trying to contribute. Plays as if he's one of our own kids.
So there's 3 loanees, with the right professional attitude - and all have/will bust a bloodvessel for the shirt.
Good points Oggy.
And as the likes of Defoe prove having a perm contract doesn't make you Mr Loyalty.
Well done all the kids and well done Parky for playing them. Really looking forward to seeing Toks come through. I think he'll be a real gem.
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]OK, a little simple research and here are the facts re loanees this season.
We have won five games in all competitions:
Swansea - Eleven Charlton players in starting XI
Reading - Ten Charlton players in starting XI plus Bouazza
Doncaster - Nine Charlton players in starting XI, plus Cranie and Bouazza
Ipswich - eight Charlton players in starting XI, plus Cranie, Primus and Bouazza
By November we had FIVE loanees in the starting XI and SEVEN on the books - and we just got worse and worse.
Until last night when FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE OPENING DAY WIN v SWANSEA we had 11 out there whose only loyalty is to Charlton.
Waghorn, McClever, Gillespie, Burton (as a loanee) and Murty have never contributed to a Charlton win , Primus just once and Cranie twice...
Go figure, as I believe they say...
Just statistics, Nigel ....and, as we all know, you can make statistics mean anything you want.
In my post, I tried to outline the individual personality & professional attitude of 3 particular loanees who I feel have played for us as if Charlton was their permanent club.
We can't just go round tarring all loanees with the same brush, just because it suits our argument.
No Oggy, but we can look at the contributions the loanees have made to the team both individually and collectively - and we can see how on the few occassions we've managed to win this season it has been either without the loanees or with their minimum presence.
Tell me, how did we ever think we were going to win a game with FIVE loanees playing? Many said so on this site at the time. And they were sadly proved right.
Just statistics? Well, I suppose 18 games without a win could also be said to be "just a statistic" !
Maybe they were right. And maybe you too, Nigel - if we look at their contribution collectively.
But individually some have brought more to the table - and for those individuals, you can't fault their attitude at all.
Now whether their presence had an adverse effect on the club's permanent contract players, and undermined their confidence because they couldn't get in the team - well, maybe that's another point and a fair one.
Having said that though, Gillespie's presence hetre brought a huge improvement in the performance and productivity of Lloyd Sam. Was that a lucky side benefit or part of the reason for bringing in an experienced current international in the first place.
You never know, in the same way, Murty being here might be giving Moo2 a little guidance and a role model to make his game more effective. Maybe that was part of the plan, too?
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]Just statistics? Well, I suppose 18 games without a win could also be said to be "just a statistic" !
Yeah but how many loans did we have when we were on that dreadful run in 98/99? That was a team full of Charlton heroes with the likes of Rufus, Youds, Kins, Mendonca, Hunt, Robinson, Newton, Mortimer. I don't think you can put the awful run down to the loan players, despite the shortcomings of some of the loans who have played.
I've avoided talking about individuals , Oggy, because I don't want to get into criticising certain players and I'm not saying that some loanees don't try hard. I was disappointed when we lost Bouazza , not just because of the circumstances but because I thought he gave us something that nobody else in our squad could.
But that's the point. To my way of thinking, if you bring in a loan player he has to be substantially better than what we've got. Not just a bit better - head and shoulders better. Or, he's got to plug an obvious gap which nobody else can. For example, we probably had to bring in Primus or Cranie (although not both, IMO) because with Fortune injured we didn't have two CDs in the squad.
The statistics in this instance do not lie. Most of our best results this season have come with zero or minimal input from loanees. Conversely, some of our very worst performances have come when we've packed the side to the gills wth loanees.
Very nice comment from McLovin. A pleasure to have a proper 'grown up' debate about an important issue on such an intelligent and informed level, Oggster!
Maybe the cause is home grown v bought rather than loan v perm
9 home grown players in the 18. When is the last time we had 50% home grown players?
Personally I think it's too simple to say it is just one thing that caused us to win. It's, IMHO, a combination of many factors including the competition, the opposition, the weather, the players' attitude, referring, balance of the side, fitness, tactics, management and maybe even a little bit of luck.
Hi Nigel, I invariably enjoy locking horns with you in a decent debate, knowing that we can always beg to differ - and that's always fine!
Back on topic ........ you say you've avoided talking about individuals - but surely that's the issue?
We can only judge each player, permanents as well as loanees, on their own personal merits and what they contribute to the team, both individually and collectively.
The down side as I see it, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is the effect on morale of players who couldn't get in the team. But in one or two cases, the knock-on effect on 1 or 2 permanent players, has been truly beneficial when those players are re-instated to the team. So there is more than one issue here.
The statistics may or may not lie, depending on perspective. For example, twice within the winless run, we were denied wins only because equalisers were conceded with virtually the last kick of the match.
Are you really suggesting that was the loanees fault ... ?
Comments
£15 million from Euro millions winner
£10 million loan from secret admirer
get rid of all of the tosserrrs ign
Ched Evans (just googled him), also with the signings they are about to make he will not get a look in
Also, through not fault of his own, Parky has now lost two loanees in Bouazza and, more importantly, McEveley and he will look to replace at least one of them, despite his very limited budget.
I have read on here that Parky has been emphasising loanees in his radio interviews in the past two days so, unless his words were misinterpreted, I think we should expect a couple to come in.
I personally don't mind at least two more loans if they replace McEveley and Murty (as he is presumably off in a few weeks) for the remainder of the season.
BUT I am also expecting at least 2-3 further permanent deals.
I know PP and Murray have mentioned 4-5 signings although that view was possibly prior to the loss of McEveley at least.
Playing any more than two at a time is not ideal as motivation and passion could become factors.
On another tack - I will not be happy if we see both Ambrose and ZZ flogged this window. When fit, both should be in our strongest 16 in my opinion as both have an eye for goal, they are adaptable and at times, at least, have demonstrated genuine class.
I could not put it better, this is the only way forward for us.
And not about tarring all loanees with the same 'couldn't care less' approach.
I never saw anything but a professional attitude with McEverley, always played with drive and determination, gave 100%.
Shame he got injured.
Same with Murty. He's not playing 'only' to get fit for Reading's anticipated promotion run in.
There's the professional pride from an experienced, mature and captain character.
He's an old head, plays football because he can't bear not to be playing, and determined not to let down his old chum Parky.
Young Waggy Waghorn - he might talk funny but how many of you have seen him sweating blood for the shirt? All of you.
Never stops running and trying to contribute. Plays as if he's one of our own kids.
So there's 3 loanees, with the right professional attitude - and all have/will bust a bloodvessel for the shirt.
We have won five games in all competitions:
Swansea - Eleven Charlton players in starting XI
Reading - Ten Charlton players in starting XI plus Bouazza
Doncaster - Nine Charlton players in starting XI, plus Cranie and Bouazza
Ipswich - eight Charlton players in starting XI, plus Cranie, Primus and Bouazza
By November we had FIVE loanees in the starting XI and SEVEN on the books - and we just got worse and worse.
Until last night when FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE OPENING DAY WIN v SWANSEA we had 11 out there whose only loyalty is to Charlton.
Waghorn, McClever, Gillespie, Burton (as a loanee) and Murty have never contributed to a Charlton win , Primus just once and Cranie twice...
Go figure, as I believe they say...
Good points Oggy.
And as the likes of Defoe prove having a perm contract doesn't make you Mr Loyalty.
Well done all the kids and well done Parky for playing them. Really looking forward to seeing Toks come through. I think he'll be a real gem.
Just statistics, Nigel ....and, as we all know, you can make statistics mean anything you want.
In my post, I tried to outline the individual personality & professional attitude of 3 particular loanees who I feel have played for us as if Charlton was their permanent club.
We can't just go round tarring all loanees with the same brush, just because it suits our argument.
Tell me, how did we ever think we were going to win a game with FIVE loanees playing? Many said so on this site at the time. And they were sadly proved right.
Just statistics? Well, I suppose 18 games without a win could also be said to be "just a statistic" !
But individually some have brought more to the table - and for those individuals, you can't fault their attitude at all.
Now whether their presence had an adverse effect on the club's permanent contract players, and undermined their confidence because they couldn't get in the team - well, maybe that's another point and a fair one.
Having said that though, Gillespie's presence hetre brought a huge improvement in the performance and productivity of Lloyd Sam. Was that a lucky side benefit or part of the reason for bringing in an experienced current international in the first place.
You never know, in the same way, Murty being here might be giving Moo2 a little guidance and a role model to make his game more effective. Maybe that was part of the plan, too?
Just conjecture, of course.
Yeah but how many loans did we have when we were on that dreadful run in 98/99? That was a team full of Charlton heroes with the likes of Rufus, Youds, Kins, Mendonca, Hunt, Robinson, Newton, Mortimer. I don't think you can put the awful run down to the loan players, despite the shortcomings of some of the loans who have played.
But that's the point. To my way of thinking, if you bring in a loan player he has to be substantially better than what we've got. Not just a bit better - head and shoulders better. Or, he's got to plug an obvious gap which nobody else can. For example, we probably had to bring in Primus or Cranie (although not both, IMO) because with Fortune injured we didn't have two CDs in the squad.
The statistics in this instance do not lie. Most of our best results this season have come with zero or minimal input from loanees. Conversely, some of our very worst performances have come when we've packed the side to the gills wth loanees.
Very nice comment from McLovin. A pleasure to have a proper 'grown up' debate about an important issue on such an intelligent and informed level, Oggster!
9 home grown players in the 18. When is the last time we had 50% home grown players?
Personally I think it's too simple to say it is just one thing that caused us to win. It's, IMHO, a combination of many factors including the competition, the opposition, the weather, the players' attitude, referring, balance of the side, fitness, tactics, management and maybe even a little bit of luck.
Back on topic ........ you say you've avoided talking about individuals - but surely that's the issue?
We can only judge each player, permanents as well as loanees, on their own personal merits and what they contribute to the team, both individually and collectively.
The down side as I see it, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is the effect on morale of players who couldn't get in the team. But in one or two cases, the knock-on effect on 1 or 2 permanent players, has been truly beneficial when those players are re-instated to the team. So there is more than one issue here.
The statistics may or may not lie, depending on perspective. For example, twice within the winless run, we were denied wins only because equalisers were conceded with virtually the last kick of the match.
Are you really suggesting that was the loanees fault ... ?
;o)