Darlo Uncovered

bga wrote:But what of the Footballing side of things, surely TW would have only let him go on the understanding he would get a certain amount of game time

I thought this too. I'm sure Pears would have gone back M'bro sharpish if he'd been sat on the bench.

theoriginalfatcat wrote:

bga wrote:But what of the Footballing side of things, surely TW would have only let him go on the understanding he would get a certain amount of game time

I thought this too. I'm sure Pears would have gone back M'bro sharpish if he'd been sat on the bench.

Hmm dunno. I'd be surprised if a loaning manager could tie the hands of his opposite number in that way. Would we want to take a player on loan if his employer was telling us we had to use him for x matches/minutes come what may? Even more of an issue if the two teams involved were in the same division.

biccynana wrote:

theoriginalfatcat wrote:

bga wrote:But what of the Footballing side of things, surely TW would have only let him go on the understanding he would get a certain amount of game time

I thought this too. I'm sure Pears would have gone back M'bro sharpish if he'd been sat on the bench.

Hmm dunno. I'd be surprised if a loaning manager could tie the hands of his opposite number in that way. Would we want to take a player on loan if his employer was telling us we had to use him for x matches/minutes come what may? Even more of an issue if the two teams involved were in the same division.

As I was trying to say I would have thought there must have been a discussion between the 2 clubs, we are not going to loan someone just to sit on the Whitby bench rather than ours are we. And yes if a player came to us (especially from a League above) I would expect TW to agree with the loaning club he was likely to be used not just sat on the bench. I agree it cannot be a "Contractual" arrangement but there must be an "understanding" between the 2 clubs otherwise what is the point? Maybe in this case the "understanding" has broken down.

bga wrote:

biccynana wrote:

theoriginalfatcat wrote:

bga wrote:But what of the Footballing side of things, surely TW would have only let him go on the understanding he would get a certain amount of game time

I thought this too. I'm sure Pears would have gone back M'bro sharpish if he'd been sat on the bench.

Hmm dunno. I'd be surprised if a loaning manager could tie the hands of his opposite number in that way. Would we want to take a player on loan if his employer was telling us we had to use him for x matches/minutes come what may? Even more of an issue if the two teams involved were in the same division.

As I was trying to say I would have thought there must have been a discussion between the 2 clubs, we are not going to loan someone just to sit on the Whitby bench rather than ours are we. And yes if a player came to us (especially from a League above) I would expect TW to agree with the loaning club he was likely to be used not just sat on the bench. I agree it cannot be a "Contractual" arrangement but there must be an "understanding" between the 2 clubs otherwise what is the point? Maybe in this case the "understanding" has broken down.

I see (and saw) your point bga. Guess ultimately the manager taking on the loanee Will do what he sees as best for his club, gentlemens' agreement or not.

Well we won't have any trouble recalling Vaulks after a month, if he's only keeping the bench warm.

Darlo_Pete wrote:Well we won't have any trouble recalling Vaulks after a month, if he's only keeping the bench warm.

All this talk of recalling him after a month confuses me (unless I've missed something obvious). Iirc, he is only on a one month loan so we don't have to recall him - he simply comes back unless the two teams and Vaulks decide to extend it.

Darlo_Pete wrote:Well we won't have any trouble recalling Vaulks after a month, if he's only keeping the bench warm.

We won't need to 'recall' him - he's only gone for a month.

Unused sub again tonight in Whitby's win.

looks as thought Tommy is intent at putting YT's on the bench anyway - there also seems to be a bigger entourage with him these days

Vaulks on the bench again for Whitby

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:Vaulks on the bench again for Whitby

Exciting stuff.

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:looks as thought Tommy is intent at putting YT's on the bench anyway

Based on what?

Based on only having youth teamers to put on the bench because of injuries? Does that = intent?

No, no it doesn't.

Imagine we’d never sent Vaulks to Whitby and hadn’t discovered Hughes ability in the middle of defence which has been the catalyst to keeping two clean sheets. He’ll be 4th / 5th choice when he returns

divas wrote:Imagine we’d never sent Vaulks to Whitby and hadn’t discovered Hughes ability in the middle of defence which has been the catalyst to keeping two clean sheets. He’ll be 4th / 5th choice when he returns

Think the squad is looking a little bit small and unbalanced at the moment, not sure what if anything Wright can do but having Burn, Galbraith, Collins, Hughes & Vaulks as CB's whilst only having Elliott, Wheatley and Glover for the CM isn't great.

We look a different team when Elliott and Wheatley play together and allows other to play, without one we struggle to get a grip on the game.

super_les_mcjannet wrote:

divas wrote:Imagine we’d never sent Vaulks to Whitby and hadn’t discovered Hughes ability in the middle of defence which has been the catalyst to keeping two clean sheets. He’ll be 4th / 5th choice when he returns

Think the squad is looking a little bit small and unbalanced at the moment, not sure what if anything Wright can do but having Burn, Galbraith, Collins, Hughes & Vaulks as CB's whilst only having Elliott, Wheatley and Glover for the CM isn't great.

We look a different team when Elliott and Wheatley play together and allows other to play, without one we struggle to get a grip on the game.

Syers too, he does that linking up job so well, it's pretty specialised

tdk1 wrote:

super_les_mcjannet wrote:

divas wrote:Imagine we’d never sent Vaulks to Whitby and hadn’t discovered Hughes ability in the middle of defence which has been the catalyst to keeping two clean sheets. He’ll be 4th / 5th choice when he returns

Think the squad is looking a little bit small and unbalanced at the moment, not sure what if anything Wright can do but having Burn, Galbraith, Collins, Hughes & Vaulks as CB's whilst only having Elliott, Wheatley and Glover for the CM isn't great.

We look a different team when Elliott and Wheatley play together and allows other to play, without one we struggle to get a grip on the game.

Syers too, he does that linking up job so well, it's pretty specialised

I see Syers ahead of the two in CM and behind the striker, wouldn't really want to see him playing in 451 as one of the other two midfielders rather than behind the striker and not sure he fits in with 442.

Hughes emergence as a more than credible centre half, pushes Vaulks further down the pecking order. But to have him just on the bench for Whitby is doing him no good. I'd prefer he was loaned to a club that would at least use him.

Darlo_Pete wrote:Hughes emergence as a more than credible centre half, pushes Vaulks further down the pecking order. But to have him just on the bench for Whitby is doing him no good. I'd prefer he was loaned to a club that would at least use him.

Yes, the lad needs to get his time on the pitch in order to develop as a player. His month's loan should be up so really down to the severity of the injuries to Galbraith & Collins as to whether he should return, even to our bench, so have to let TW and his team decide.

jjljks wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:Hughes emergence as a more than credible centre half, pushes Vaulks further down the pecking order. But to have him just on the bench for Whitby is doing him no good. I'd prefer he was loaned to a club that would at least use him.

Yes, the lad needs to get his time on the pitch in order to develop as a player. His month's loan should be up so really down to the severity of the injuries to Galbraith & Collins as to whether he should return, even to our bench, so have to let TW and his team decide.

I think its straightforward enough now, get Vaulks back, get Collins fit and out on loan.

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:

jjljks wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:Hughes emergence as a more than credible centre half, pushes Vaulks further down the pecking order. But to have him just on the bench for Whitby is doing him no good. I'd prefer he was loaned to a club that would at least use him.

Yes, the lad needs to get his time on the pitch in order to develop as a player. His month's loan should be up so really down to the severity of the injuries to Galbraith & Collins as to whether he should return, even to our bench, so have to let TW and his team decide.

I think its straightforward enough now, get Vaulks back, get Collins fit and out on loan.

Yep I agree I'd put Vaulks ahead of Collins at the moment.