Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Ruben loftus-Cheek on loan?



S

Sussex Nomad

Well-known member
Aug 26, 2010
18,185
EP
HCxUK said:
I think we could do with a player like him, would allow us to change it up a bit if he played in behind Murray/Hemed. There's no harm in serious strength in depth, who's to say we won't lose players to injury? He is a quality player and if he is available we should be looking at him, I can't imagine his wages are too high and we wouldn't be covering all of them
Click to expand...

I think I covered the injury/suspension. How many players do you want to cover each position? Three? Four? I think we are seriously strong in our depth, yes? no? maybe? I don't see this guy as an addition, because I am not sure where we are supposed to play him? I'd rather try and get in a nippy smallish forward. I also believe Chelsea will dictate terms of loan, we don't need to be dictated too. I could be wrong on everything, but I don't see this lad as a good addition, however good, bad or indifferent he may be.
 




M

Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,653
Fiveways
Change at Barnham said:
I would think that any Premier League player loaned out to a club this month could well return for a full season loan in 17/18.
If we build a relationship with him and we like each other he could be a quality addition to the club.
Click to expand...

He'll only go on a full season loan to a PL club, and even that's unlikely. And this makes it more likely that he comes to us rather than Birmingham.
 




H

HCxUK

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2014
823
Sussex Nomad said:
I think I covered the injury/suspension. How many players do you want to cover each position? Three? Four? I think we are seriously strong in our depth, yes? no? maybe? I don't see this guy as an addition, because I am not sure where we are supposed to play him? I'd rather try and get in a nippy smallish forward. I also believe Chelsea will dictate terms of loan, we don't need to be dictated too. I could be wrong on everything, but I don't see this lad as a good addition, however good, bad or indifferent he may be.
Click to expand...

I don't think we'd do the deal if we HAD to play him, I think our loan system was touched on earlier in the thread. I do understand your argument but just think too many of us are stuck with this small club mentality, if we have the chance to sign a player like Loftus-Cheek ahead of West Ham and Newcastle we should go for it, it'll only improve the squad and give CH more options. If he doesn't get in to the team because we're playing so well, so what? And equally if we aren't playing so well he gives us another quality option
 


M

Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,653
Fiveways
Sussex Nomad said:
I think I covered the injury/suspension. How many players do you want to cover each position? Three? Four? I think we are seriously strong in our depth, yes? no? maybe? I don't see this guy as an addition, because I am not sure where we are supposed to play him? I'd rather try and get in a nippy smallish forward. I also believe Chelsea will dictate terms of loan, we don't need to be dictated too. I could be wrong on everything, but I don't see this lad as a good addition, however good, bad or indifferent he may be.
Click to expand...

Let me put a different case:
-- CH doesn't just favour 4-4-2. Under us, he's also played 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1, 4-5-1, and others too. I can see him playing any of these formations at certain points this season, largely to protect a lead or even to protect a point. If we do exceptionally well over the next 15 games, I can also see him experimenting and preparing for next season with such a formation.
-- this means that we will need an attacking midfielder to play in some or all of such formations. Currently we only have Towell that really fits that bill, although others would make the case for Knockaert, Murphy and March playing there. So, Loftus-Cheek would be an upgrade on all of those, both in terms of quality (arguably) and specialism in that position.
-- so, in answer to your questions: we only really need one cover for each position (i.e. two for each position), although there are a few positions that we need an extra (goalkeeper, and at least one out of winger or striker); RL-C would be not only a cover for Baldock, but provide the alternative formation to Baldock.
-- feasibly, we could get two in, with RL-C being one, and a Baldock-type as the other
-- see also the point I've made in post 42
 




1066familyman

1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,185
Machiavelli said:
Let me put a different case:
-- CH doesn't just favour 4-4-2. Under us, he's also played 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1, 4-5-1, and others too. I can see him playing any of these formations at certain points this season, largely to protect a lead or even to protect a point. If we do exceptionally well over the next 15 games, I can also see him experimenting and preparing for next season with such a formation.
-- this means that we will need an attacking midfielder to play in some or all of such formations. Currently we only have Towell that really fits that bill, although others would make the case for Knockaert, Murphy and March playing there. So, Loftus-Cheek would be an upgrade on all of those, both in terms of quality (arguably) and specialism in that position.
-- so, in answer to your questions: we only really need one cover for each position (i.e. two for each position), although there are a few positions that we need an extra (goalkeeper, and at least one out of winger or striker); RL-C would be not only a cover for Baldock, but provide the alternative formation to Baldock.
-- feasibly, we could get two in, with RL-C being one, and a Baldock-type as the other
-- see also the point I've made in post 42
Click to expand...

Good post.

Would you agree though that he'd be nailed on as a regular starter at Brum but not with us, and Chelsea would probably prefer the former?
 




M

Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,653
Fiveways
1066familyman said:
Good post.

Would you agree though that he'd be nailed on as a regular starter at Brum but not with us, and Chelsea would probably prefer the former?
Click to expand...

Many thanks :blush:
Yes, I would, but it's not just about nailed on starting, it's about playing in a team where he can progress, and I think we both know which one is winning out on that one. Deliciously, I'm not so sure I'd have typed that sentence a month ago.
 




C

Cold Gettin Dumb

Active member
Jan 31, 2013
462
a quick google search shows that a few papers have tagged onto this. We are being favoured over West Ham to land him.
He's physically strong and would proved to be an absolute asset to our squad in my opinion.
For some reason I watched a youtube clip of him a couple of years ago, maybe because someone on here mentioned him then, I can't quite remember, but I do remember thinking he was an absolute beast in the making. I'd be very happy to see him in the stripes...
 


lawros left foot

lawros left foot

Glory hunting since 1969
Jun 11, 2011
13,723
Worthing
I know it's only Twitter, but the Geordies on there think that they havre had a loan bid rejected by Chelsea, in favour of us, not that many believe anyone would rather come to us than them.
Maybe, Chesea have seen how much playing time Texand James Wilson got for us as our last two high profile loanees
 


Hugo Rune

Hugo Rune

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 23, 2012
21,622
Brighton
knocky1 said:


Shirt 36
Click to expand...


I know all these player highlight videos make the subject matter look brilliant but his attributes seem ideal for a player needed as cover for Baldock.

I really like how progressive he is when he receives the ball; always turning forward to run or play a pass. He looks strong and quick as well as being useful in the box. A complimentary player whom would not get in Murray or Hemed's way and one whom would benefit from a Championship title chase. He could even play just off Baldock if we ever decide to play him in his preferred position.

We turned Lingard into a first team player for Man Utd capable of stabbing Palace in the heart till they stopped breathing (slight but necessary exaggeration). We can do the same for RLC.
 




Sheebo

Sheebo

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2003
29,287
1066familyman said:
That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.

Just trying to put 2 and 2 together. Probably coming up with 5, but that's what transfer window speculation is all about isn't it :)
Click to expand...

Ah got ya - I just didn't really realise what you were saying. Yes, you're quite right though - if imagine Zola has close links at Chelsea and possibly Weat Ham. If we were in for RLC it would surely be as a striker role. At least the source on this one is better than a made up Twitter transfer account I guess...
 


Sheebo

Sheebo

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2003
29,287
1066familyman said:
That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.

Just trying to put 2 and 2 together. Probably coming up with 5, but that's what transfer window speculation is all about isn't it :)
Click to expand...

Also just realised my original post is littered with iPhone autocorrect nonsense as usual - sorry - fat fingers :lol:
 






1066familyman

1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,185
lawros left foot said:
I know it's only Twitter, but the Geordies on there think that they havre had a loan bid rejected by Chelsea, in favour of us, not that many believe anyone would rather come to us than them.
Maybe, Chesea have seen how much playing time Texand James Wilson got for us as our last two high profile loanees
Click to expand...

Lingard surely is the template for perfect loan arrangment. Now, who was it he went out to again :whistle:
 














You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here