Our form would suggest that we don't have one, or that our prozone is broken or we don't even have it anymore - maybe that went as part of the cost-cutting measures!
Well it only exposes yet again how the loan system has been of no use to us whatsoever since Pardew started this crazy dance, which Pardky has all too enthusiastically continued. Youngsters get a chance because Soares and Murty can't play. Then they come straight back in three days later v Palace and the youngsters get junked again, no matter how well they have done. It's one of the reasons we have somehow managed to field 24 different players in our last four games.
The truth is that of our five wins this season, two have come with no loanees in the side and a third came with just one loanee (Bouazza, who was at least on a season-long - allegedly!)
When the side has been packed with loanees - and we've had nine of them this season so far - we've usually been rubbish. Gillespie, Waghorn, Murty, Soares, Burton during his loan spell and McEveley have never played in a winning Charlton side. Primus did just once during his three months, Cranie twice. So someone please tell us what is the point...
so we can't play our own player Spring against a team he hardly played for anyway, who didn't even hold his registration, in a Cup competition in which we hadn't even got through the previous round when he signed. Can't we find some way to keep Burton out too ??
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]The truth is that of our five wins this season, two have come with no loanees in the side and a third came with just one loanee (Bouazza, who was at least on a season-long - allegedly!)
Err, sorry Nigel, but that means we've won as many games with a team packed with loanees as we have with a team with no loanees.
I fully sympathise with the argument that all these loanees are getting us nowhere, but we will still be rubbish without them - it's just the rubbish players will be our rubbish players so at least we as fans might feel a little more affinity with them.
[cite]Posted By: Swisdom[/cite]
But the ratio of wins whilst with no loanees is vastly superior to the ratio with loanees - I think that's the point here
You're not dealing with a statistically strong data set though - we're not seeing figures that would stand up in court.
Like I say, I sympathise with the point, but you not going to convince me loanees are the be all and end all of our problems. Hudson, Fortune, Basey, Bailey and Gray were probably the 5 most ineffective players on the pitch on Saturday and not a loanee amoungst them, although I have to admit Soares was quite annoymous too.
The kids will play on Saturday and they'll get shown up a bit by a good side I suspect. I hope I'm wrong, but I think that win at Norwich was the case of us edging it over another very poor side in disarray. Saturday will be a vastly different scernario and I think that will be reflected in the result.
Simple then isn't Nigel, all we need to do is drop the loanees and we'll win all the remaining 18 games and scrape into the playoffs!
Do me a favour, our worst players are NOT, I repeat NOT our loan players, of which there were just 2 playing on Saturday as opposed to 5 youth team products yet we produced what many have described as the worst away performance for 10s of years.
The perception we've been overloaded with loanees all season just isn't true. Primus had to play because we had only one other fit centre back. Buzz has widely been seen as a miss since he left so the only 'optional' loan we were using up until Waghorn arrived was Crainie. We did have a phase over Christmas of too many loanees but one was McEverley and I think most would agree he was the best of the 3 LBs used this season and another was Burton who was merely a loan so we could play him before his pre arranged transfer became permanent. Gillespie was however a waste of time, but we were already deep into our poor run before the loanees started to arrive so you still won't convince me their presence around the club has been the biggest issue here.
''all we need to do is drop the loanees and we'll win all the remaining 18 games and scrape into the playoffs...you still won't convince me their presence around the club has been the biggest issue here.''
Who on earth said that, Exiled? Not me. I merely gave you the statistics and pointed out that the loan players have done nothing to improve our season. That seems to be undeniable, because we could not have had a worse time of it, could we? We are bottom of the table. To coin a phrase, Harry Redknapp's wife could have done better.
You acquit Pardew and Parkinson of overloading us with loanees. But can you name me another championship side this season that has played NINE of them?
The loanees ''are not our worst players'', you say. I should hope not, indeed - otherwise why take them? But surely if we are going to take loan players, they should be our best players - not just a little bit better than what we've already got, but a whole class better. And they are not. Instead, we've had kids sent to us to gain experience. And crocks sent to us to get fit. And we've ended up playing five of them some weeks - and still losing!
But perhaps you are right. May be we will extend Waghorn's loan for a third month and then watch him, Murty and Soares emerge as the shining stars as we surge irresistibly up the table (even though they're only here for another three or four weeks). I'd love to see that. My head tells me there's not a hope. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, though.
You are all talking about embarrassment as though it was Charlton who played their academy coach and prozone analyst but it reads to me as though it was Ipswich who did that!!
I didn't say you did say that Nigel, just pointing out that if you use such a weak data set (as the one you quote) to draw your conclusions then, looking at it from a statistcal analysis perspective, that is the conclusion you will draw. In effect, what I'm saying is those 2 wins prove nothing as they could easily be freak results, we just haven't palyed enough games without any loanees to be able to say that it would solve everything or even make things particularly any better.
It also ignores things like the perception we were outplayed by Swansea who only lost because they lacked the cutting edge of the injured Jason Scotland and that Norwich were arguably in a worse state when we played them than we are, and again, many who were there will tell you 9 out of 10 teams would have won that game against us as well.
As for the point about 9 loanees, Blackpool had 8 in their squad when we played them before Christmas and they turned us over quite nicley.
As I've said elsewhere, I have full sympathy for the idea that a lot of our loans have been pointless and not significantly better than what we have, but that's only because what we already have isn't much kop either. I would obvioulsy rather watch a young Charlton graduate making stupid mistakes in the hope he'll learn and become a better player than watch an ageing crock from another club make the same mistakes.
I just think that anyone who thinks playing the kids will see a dramatic turn around in our fortunes is deluding themsleves a little.
We're not really that far apart at all, Exiled.I agree with much of what you say and you are entirely correct in your conclusion that "anyone who thinks playing the kids will see a dramatic turn around in our fortunes is deluding themselves a little.'
It won't. But on the other hand, I can't see how it would make things any worse and it would hold us in good stead for a better future.
[cite]Posted By: Ledge[/cite]the Matt Spring thing is botox - Can't believe we agreed to this.
Is Sheff Utd wanted him that badly why did they not sign him.
Firstly, Matt Spring has a decent Championship pedigree - so we've signed a player who has already proved experienced and effective for other clubs at this level.
Surely he can't be properly included in the list of loan players - it was always a permant transfer; the 'emergency loan' element was only so that he could play our next game while his registration was being finalised by the FA.
Secondly, Sheff Utd has in the main been building the quality of their squad, unlike Charlton's financial policy of depleting theirs.
Maybe he was no better player than Sheff Utd has already, and as they have an abundance of midfield players themselves, that didn't guarantee him a regular starting place.
Nevertheless, despite missing through injury earlier in the season, he still made 13 appearances for Sheff Utd scoring 1 goal.
Finally, he was on a season long loan from Luton to Sheff Utd. It wasn't Sheff Utd that sent him back to Luton.
Luton has capitalised by selling an asset at a time of their financial desperation, the player evidently wanted a permanent contract - and a move back south closer to his roots no doubt appealed for family reasons.
We've signed an experienced Championship level player here, with the character that Parky's been talking about.
He also scored a cracking goal at Wednesday, a goalscoring midfielder, so maybe he is the type of player we need ?
Did we know when we signed Spring we'd be playing Sheff U again as we've already played them twice in the league?
I suspect this may have been a small compromise we had to make to get the deal done quicker and in time for what was a crunch game against Notts Forest, that Bailey was also injured for.
Panic measures again I know, but you can understand why the club have been taking such drastic action, especially as all we stood to lose was to be weakend for a fairly meaningless cup game.
Comments
The truth is that of our five wins this season, two have come with no loanees in the side and a third came with just one loanee (Bouazza, who was at least on a season-long - allegedly!)
When the side has been packed with loanees - and we've had nine of them this season so far - we've usually been rubbish. Gillespie, Waghorn, Murty, Soares, Burton during his loan spell and McEveley have never played in a winning Charlton side. Primus did just once during his three months, Cranie twice. So someone please tell us what is the point...
I actually went to school with him - Scott Coomber I believe.
Not much good if I recall
With our lot they'll be drawing straws to see who gets NOT to play...
Err, sorry Nigel, but that means we've won as many games with a team packed with loanees as we have with a team with no loanees.
I fully sympathise with the argument that all these loanees are getting us nowhere, but we will still be rubbish without them - it's just the rubbish players will be our rubbish players so at least we as fans might feel a little more affinity with them.
You're not dealing with a statistically strong data set though - we're not seeing figures that would stand up in court.
Like I say, I sympathise with the point, but you not going to convince me loanees are the be all and end all of our problems. Hudson, Fortune, Basey, Bailey and Gray were probably the 5 most ineffective players on the pitch on Saturday and not a loanee amoungst them, although I have to admit Soares was quite annoymous too.
The kids will play on Saturday and they'll get shown up a bit by a good side I suspect. I hope I'm wrong, but I think that win at Norwich was the case of us edging it over another very poor side in disarray. Saturday will be a vastly different scernario and I think that will be reflected in the result.
2 games won with no loanees
1 game won with one (Bouazza)
1 game won with two (B and Cranie)
1 game won with three (B,C and Primus).
Loads of games played with three, four and five loanees - of which we've won just one.
NUmber of games played with no loanees: two, Swansea and Norwich. We won both of them.
So I think the narrative those stats tells really requires no further expansion from me!
Do me a favour, our worst players are NOT, I repeat NOT our loan players, of which there were just 2 playing on Saturday as opposed to 5 youth team products yet we produced what many have described as the worst away performance for 10s of years.
The perception we've been overloaded with loanees all season just isn't true. Primus had to play because we had only one other fit centre back. Buzz has widely been seen as a miss since he left so the only 'optional' loan we were using up until Waghorn arrived was Crainie. We did have a phase over Christmas of too many loanees but one was McEverley and I think most would agree he was the best of the 3 LBs used this season and another was Burton who was merely a loan so we could play him before his pre arranged transfer became permanent. Gillespie was however a waste of time, but we were already deep into our poor run before the loanees started to arrive so you still won't convince me their presence around the club has been the biggest issue here.
Who on earth said that, Exiled? Not me. I merely gave you the statistics and pointed out that the loan players have done nothing to improve our season. That seems to be undeniable, because we could not have had a worse time of it, could we? We are bottom of the table. To coin a phrase, Harry Redknapp's wife could have done better.
You acquit Pardew and Parkinson of overloading us with loanees. But can you name me another championship side this season that has played NINE of them?
The loanees ''are not our worst players'', you say. I should hope not, indeed - otherwise why take them? But surely if we are going to take loan players, they should be our best players - not just a little bit better than what we've already got, but a whole class better. And they are not. Instead, we've had kids sent to us to gain experience. And crocks sent to us to get fit. And we've ended up playing five of them some weeks - and still losing!
But perhaps you are right. May be we will extend Waghorn's loan for a third month and then watch him, Murty and Soares emerge as the shining stars as we surge irresistibly up the table (even though they're only here for another three or four weeks). I'd love to see that. My head tells me there's not a hope. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, though.
It also ignores things like the perception we were outplayed by Swansea who only lost because they lacked the cutting edge of the injured Jason Scotland and that Norwich were arguably in a worse state when we played them than we are, and again, many who were there will tell you 9 out of 10 teams would have won that game against us as well.
As for the point about 9 loanees, Blackpool had 8 in their squad when we played them before Christmas and they turned us over quite nicley.
As I've said elsewhere, I have full sympathy for the idea that a lot of our loans have been pointless and not significantly better than what we have, but that's only because what we already have isn't much kop either. I would obvioulsy rather watch a young Charlton graduate making stupid mistakes in the hope he'll learn and become a better player than watch an ageing crock from another club make the same mistakes.
I just think that anyone who thinks playing the kids will see a dramatic turn around in our fortunes is deluding themsleves a little.
It won't. But on the other hand, I can't see how it would make things any worse and it would hold us in good stead for a better future.
Is Sheff Utd wanted him that badly why did they not sign him.
Are we now in a position where (what is effectively) a conference club is calling the shots over a transfer deal?
Firstly, Matt Spring has a decent Championship pedigree - so we've signed a player who has already proved experienced and effective for other clubs at this level.
Surely he can't be properly included in the list of loan players - it was always a permant transfer; the 'emergency loan' element was only so that he could play our next game while his registration was being finalised by the FA.
Secondly, Sheff Utd has in the main been building the quality of their squad, unlike Charlton's financial policy of depleting theirs.
Maybe he was no better player than Sheff Utd has already, and as they have an abundance of midfield players themselves, that didn't guarantee him a regular starting place.
Nevertheless, despite missing through injury earlier in the season, he still made 13 appearances for Sheff Utd scoring 1 goal.
Finally, he was on a season long loan from Luton to Sheff Utd. It wasn't Sheff Utd that sent him back to Luton.
Luton has capitalised by selling an asset at a time of their financial desperation, the player evidently wanted a permanent contract - and a move back south closer to his roots no doubt appealed for family reasons.
We've signed an experienced Championship level player here, with the character that Parky's been talking about.
He also scored a cracking goal at Wednesday, a goalscoring midfielder, so maybe he is the type of player we need ?
But I think what Ledge was objecting to was not us signing him, but agreeing to Shef U's demand that he cannot play against them for us.
Do we have a similar agreement that Boauzza can't play when Birmingham City come to the Valley in April? I bet we don't!
I suspect this may have been a small compromise we had to make to get the deal done quicker and in time for what was a crunch game against Notts Forest, that Bailey was also injured for.
Panic measures again I know, but you can understand why the club have been taking such drastic action, especially as all we stood to lose was to be weakend for a fairly meaningless cup game.