As a club in recent times we have haven’t been big on loan signings. This is something I’m in favour of, I don’t see the point of bringing in a player who’s not the finished article and giving them games to improve them for the benefit of another club. Plus if they do well (Harvey Barnes!) they get recalled and you’ve suddenly got a hole to fill. We’ve got 2 this year. And the manager doesn’t fancy either of them, so what’s the point?? Gomes looks a player and I can see why he was brought in as he’s different to our other options. But for me he would only truly flourish at the base of a midfield 3, under Markus Schitt we don’t / won’t play that way and I don’t see how the player, us, or City benefit from the arrangement? Does Vita actually exist? I heard he was last seen sipping cocktails on a private island with Elvis, Tupac and Phil Gridelet…….. I really like Jordan Williams and it’s grossly unfair playing him out of position the way we do. But if this guy can’t get a game in front of square pegs in round holes he must be nowhere near good enough. An utterly pointless, waste of wages.
they're only worth it if they are better than what you have. 1-2 loan signings I'm OK with. They can fill a gap, add depth and you can get the inside track to signing them if they have a good spell. There's been plenty of times we've signed a loanee that we would never have done had they not joined us on loan first - Nardiello, Anderson, Hammill. Those that come and warm the bench are pointless signings. They may as well warm the bench for their parent club.
Not sure if I would go as far as to use that phrase but… I think it would be fair to assume under the current ownership that we identified a couple of positions, couldn’t get targets we wanted, so opted for a short term solution for the now.
Gomes looks like he’d be best at the base of a midfield 3. Styles and Benson both look like they’d be better off in a 3 with a DM behind them. Palmer did well early season but has also been part of midfield 2s that get overrun. Yet we continue to start with a midfield 2 in every single game.
The sooner we change to five across midfield playing Styles on the left with no defenders in central midfield we'll pick up results. Even with the players left. Based on what I've seen thus far. Collins, Sibbick, Helik, Halme J.Williams, Hondermarck, Palmer (Benson instead if fit), Gomes, Styles Woodrow (we've no one better fit) Iseka.
I think Brittain is another who would be better in a midfield 3 in a Schopp system, with a fast right back / right wing back outside him. As it is, I don't think Schopp actually knows how to set a team up to play a back three and wing backs. Otherwise he would've done something about the problems we've had with wider players getting behind our defence every game.
If you're going to stick square pegs in round holes the system has to be 4-4-2. Collins Sibbick, Helik, Halme, Kitching. J.Williams, Hondermarck,(Benson if fit). Gomes, Styles Woodrow, Iseka.
Collins Sibbick Helik Kitching Gomes Brittain Benson Palmer Styles Woodrow Iseka Woodrow only just makes a start for me (this week), as does Palmer. And I'd be OK with Moon getting another start over Sibbick. He was poor the other night, but that was down to formation, not himself.
I differ on Woodrow. I see him stuggling manfully in a system that is just non-existent. Given the right system/plan he is definitely the right man and put in a mamoth shift on Wednesday.