Loanees

[Goalmouth]

We only have, I believe one player on loan, and I've been wondering whether it's better not to have a team with the maximum number of loan players. These players, potentially, can add something extra to your team, but what happens when they return to their clubs? Is it better to build your side around permanent signings? Clearly, in the event of an injury a loan player could fill the gap, but are long term loans a good idea? Can you replace the loan players with equal quality the following season?

[Garawa]

Recent seasons when we have often played sides at the bottom, one of my facts was often how many extra players they had used. It can't be a coincidence surely. It takes a player 2 or 3 games to settle in and understand what will be largely 10 players he has never played with before. If he stays for 7 or 8 games (2 months is a fairly long loan in most cases) he really only has 5 or 6 maximum to add something and possibly has match sharpness to factor in as well. In some cases (Marquis) it just clicks but I feel this is an exception. Then you start the cycle all over again.

We started with a fairly new side but we had pre-season to bed them in. Far better in my opinion to have a settled core of players that you add 1 to at the most as these players will know each other inside out and with numerous changes throughout the season any player coming in knows what is expected. We are seeing coherent sides performing better than huge teams, I believe, due to the virtue of having players that know how to bring out the best in each other rather than a load of individual superstars that might not play at the same time all season!