Sending Matty James back looks to be the worst decision of the season

Probably had a few strikers on our radar!!
Dike was the one that we made happen no idea whether he was the first choice or not.

 

Dane won't need any psychic abilities to know who's moaning

 

I'm not moaning. My post about Matty James was nearly a month ago.

 

Yes, the release of James allows us to develop "our own" players in his position. One is very young and injury prone, and the other has really struggled since he signed.

What cannot be argued though, is that we are hugely weakened by James' absence - and without him we are a poorer side.

Maybe it was seen as a financial move, but in September the signing of James was seen as viable - so that's not an issue obviously.

From a purely footballing perspective, it's a poor decision.

 

The logic of cancelling the loan of an experienced and proven player like James who the younger squad members would undoubtedly learn from in order to play and develop our young players makes absolutely no sense when you then loan in an inexperienced young lad from America to play at the expense of our young strikers.

 

I agree with your overall view but there is a caveat to it. I think Mowatt and Palmer are good enough, in time, to be a central midfield pairing in a promotion chasing side. I think, potentially, Kane is too, even though we haven't seen that yet. I don't think most of our forwards are.

Woodrow is. Hopefully Morris has something to offer. I don't think the others have the quality. I love Victor, but I love his determination, his work rate and his attitude, not so much his skill set. If the manager doesn't believe they're good enough, continuing working with them doesn't make a lot of sense. Get a loan striker in and try to get as many points as possible. But continue to work with the midfield players you believe will make it.

I think we got it wrong, I think we should have kept James, this season is too good an opportunity to miss. We're not really good enough for the playoffs but we could have made it. However, the rational behind what we've done does at least make sense.

 

Nailed it.

 

It was common knowledge that he’d get minutes in that game, fitness permitting.

 

He thought we'd beat Derby and everyone else walk about in Hi-tecs or Gola.

 

I told you that was going to happen, even though I didn't, and I'm now speaking after the fact to prove what I didn't say before it happened was right.

 

You are Dr Who.

 

Was it?.... Where?

 

Good point. Even if their were no opponents, we still be prone to shipping the odd goal.

 

Matty who? Glad we made him a yard quicker, tougher in the tackle and a natural goal scorer. Wish him well. Good luck with that

 

I, he got fed up afe way through 2nd half n gid em a few

 

Having James here was helping develop our own youngsters by them training and being around him all the time.

 

It almost appears as if it was architected so he could get a loan move to Europe.

 

Did Matty James make as much difference as he did on his previous loan. I think not. That is not necessarily his fault. He was playing in a different system. 3-4-3 is a system in which the middle 2 in midfield are required to retain their position, and read the game. They are not required to get forward, hit defence splitting passes and have shots on goal. They are glorified defenders, and when they get the ball, they are required to hit it 50 yards forward most of the time. Does it really need a player of Matty James' undoubted ability to do that? Does the club really need to spend James sort of money to acquire the ability to read the game, defend in front of the back 3 and kick the ball 50 yards. I think not.

 

You’re talking about two different positions with different players. I’m sure everyone agrees that our striking options are thin/low quality so even if it’s a short term move that improves us, so what? But of course to take the negative view fits your narrative so it’s unsurprising.