Harry Chapman

[RoverCanada]

In a scenario where we get promoted and Chapman plays a strong part in that, and he's happy at the club, it's not hard to imagine us trying to make him a permanent signing next year. Consider it an extended audition. Loans are always going to be a lower risk than a permanent signing, just with lower potential long-term pay-off. Imagine if Chapman was playing like ****. We'd be pretty relieved he'd be heading back to Middlesbrough as soon as January. Same for Antonsson before he managed a few goals.

Even if he doesn't stick around, if Chapman turns out to be the marginal factor in pushing us on to promotion, that's a loan well taken.

Now, if we don't get promoted, Chapman goes back to Middlesbrough despite excelling here, and his playing time thus only served to stand in the way of players we're hoping to develop long-term, yes, obviously that's a worse case scenario. But it's a bit much to treat that as the reality today.

Edited September 30, 2017 by RoverCanada

[J*B]

Isn’t he out of contract next year?

[Parsonblue]

22 hours ago, JAL said:

Because the product on show has been unecessarily downgraded that's why. Loanees with no long term future here certainly stops me from attending.

Where's my Rovers gone ?

Loans certainly didn't stop attendances going up when we borrowed Archibald and Ardiles.  You missed a treat not going to games that season.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, J*B said:

Isn’t he out of contact next year?

He needs to get a better phone.

[J*B]

4 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

He needs to get a better phone.

Whoops! 

[JacknOry]

If he is out of contract next year - damn we need to snap him up if hes happy here and we get promoted. Its a double edged sword though, the better he does here, the more teams will show an interest.

[47er]

1 hour ago, Parsonblue said:

Loans certainly didn't stop attendances going up when we borrowed Archibald and Ardiles.  You missed a treat not going to games that season.

They were late "top-ups" to get us up. How many other loans did we have at the time? None maybe?

Its entirely different when you are borrowing half the side from the start of the season.

[Parsonblue]

9 minutes ago, 47er said:

They were late "top-ups" to get us up. How many other loans did we have at the time? None maybe?

Its entirely different when you are borrowing half the side from the start of the season.

Personally, I don't have a problem with loans.  Ultimately they are there to do a job for the club as well, hopefully, for themselves.  On Tuesday we had Downing and Antonsson on from the start and Chapman came on as a sub - it's hardly half the side.

[47er]

There are several others who could also have played though. It wasn't like that when we loaned Archibald and Ardilles despite your constant attempt to convince us nothing is really different.

Its not till Venkys came along, with " Madame "specifically stating that we didn't need a big transfer budget because we could borrow players from other clubs that loans played much of a part in our club at all.

You're the history man, how many loans did we take on between 1992 and 2010?

[roversfan99]

You should only get loans to either give you something that perhaps you couldn't afford to buy outright, or to cover someones injury. No padding the squad out full of loans.

Chapman gives us pace we are sorely lacking, thats a good loan.

Antonsson, although he looked awful at first, he looks better wide and has got 3 goals and deserves to be starting, potentially a good loan.

Downing, only here to cover Lenihan, not convinced he has the quality to cover for a long period of time for a team at the top of the league, but hes done ok so far.

It's the Harper one that baffles me. The 3 main central midfielders above him are very good at this level, Harper is well away from the team but its strange to sign a kid to fill the squad when we have our own youngsters such as Tomlinson who can surely do a job as a 4th choice in case of injuries.

[JAL]

4 hours ago, Parsonblue said:

Loans certainly didn't stop attendances going up when we borrowed Archibald and Ardiles.  You missed a treat not going to games that season.

 International players and world cup winners of quality v todays young kids from nowhere when we should have our own kids coming through ? 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by JAL

[joey_big_nose]

On 24/09/2017 at 16:19, DE. said:

Similar to how Josh King and Mo Barrow weren't used as they should have been. 

Agree with this, talented players should get games. The whole team management thing where we play grafters over more mercurial players has hardly worked out for us. King, Cairney etc. were never properly tried.

Quality like Chapman should get a regular game. We have enough water carriers like Smallwood, Evans, Bennett etc. to allow at least a couple of more risky ones in the team.

Probably Mowbray sees himself as limited to one of either Chapman or Dack but I think we should try both at once. If it doesn't work he can sub one off.

[Herbie6590]

Just now, joey_big_nose said:

Agree with this, talented players should get games. The whole team management thing where we play grafters over more mercurial players has hardly worked out for us. King, Cairney etc. were never properly tried.

Quality like Chapman should get a regular game. We have enough water carriers like Smallwood, Evans, Bennett etc. to allow at least a couple of more risky ones in the team.

Probably Mowbray sees himself as limited to one of either Chapman or Dack but I think we should try both at once. If it doesn't work he can sub one off.

Today seemed to confirm the guideline of "No more than 1 flair player on the pitch at any given moment"

[blueboy3333]

Even Chapman looked bored today. He hoiked a left-footer down the line at one point rugby style as if to say 'I really can't be arsed with this today' As Mowbray said he looks a right grumpy bugger at times. Still, he provided the only real edge-of-the-seat entertainment today.

[Parsonblue]

6 hours ago, 47er said:

There are several others who could also have played though. It wasn't like that when we loaned Archibald and Ardilles despite your constant attempt to convince us nothing is really different.

Its not till Venkys came along, with " Madame "specifically stating that we didn't need a big transfer budget because we could borrow players from other clubs that loans played much of a part in our club at all.

You're the history man, how many loans did we take on between 1992 and 2010?

Between 1992 and 2010 we were in the Premier League.  Now we are in League One where loans are the norm.  Times have changed, sadly, but wishing it wasn't so isn't going to change things.  If Mowbray believes the players he has brought in on loan will help us to promotion then good luck to them.  We can't change the past but hopefully the guys on loan can improve our future and help to take us back to the Championship.

[47er]

2 hours ago, Parsonblue said:

Between 1992 and 2010 we were in the Premier League.  Now we are in League One where loans are the norm.  Times have changed, sadly, but wishing it wasn't so isn't going to change things.  If Mowbray believes the players he has brought in on loan will help us to promotion then good luck to them.  We can't change the past but hopefully the guys on loan can improve our future and help to take us back to the Championship.

The thing is, I believe that for Venkys loans are the norm, no matter what league we are in.

[alcd]

2 hours ago, Parsonblue said:

Between 1992 and 2010 we were in the Premier League.  Now we are in League One where loans are the norm.  Times have changed, sadly, but wishing it wasn't so isn't going to change things.  If Mowbray believes the players he has brought in on loan will help us to promotion then good luck to them.  We can't change the past but hopefully the guys on loan can improve our future and help to take us back to the Championship.

2012 not 2010 but really the clock stopped when Venkys moved in.

[K-Hod]

Loan discussions aside, I have to admit that I thought Mowbray managed this lad well yesterday.

He’s absolutely superlative and a joy to watch going forward, but defensively, well, there’s not really much being offered, is there? Danny Graham had to tell him what to do and where to be on a couple of occasions yesterday.

Danny Graham, most recently best know for his hard work....

Edited October 2, 2017 by K-Hod

[Oldgregg86]

You also have to factor in the players we loan out to other clubs to gain valuable experience. It works both ways. 

[BenRTID]

I have been calling for Chapman in the starting eleven for a couple of weeks now, even though I had a seed of doubt in my mind over his influence in the game over 90 minutes. The way he plays when he only has 15/20 minutes is explosive, so he would have to adapt his play over 90 mins and pick and choose the moments to take a man on...but I still think (or thought) he'd done enough to show us what he can do from the start, and especially with Conway still out injured.

However...he came onto the pitch with 30 minutes to go vs Gillingham and showed me another side to him that I hadn't previously seen. 

1. A well deserved booking for a woeful dive 

2. Lucky to escape without a booking inside the 6 yard box when he manhandled his man during a corner in something that wouldn't have looked out of place in a WWE ring!

In my mind, he came onto the pitch with a the wrong attitude. It stunk of self-important or entitlement, something which an 18 yr old should not be displaying when he is still learning the game.

I hope TM saw this and had a word in his ear. If he did see it, he has for sure proven himself right in his decision to not yet start Chapman.

Bags of ability but needs to work on his mental approach.

[DE.]

On 9/30/2017 at 19:35, Parsonblue said:

Between 1992 and 2010 we were in the Premier League.  Now we are in League One where loans are the norm.  Times have changed, sadly, but wishing it wasn't so isn't going to change things.  If Mowbray believes the players he has brought in on loan will help us to promotion then good luck to them.  We can't change the past but hopefully the guys on loan can improve our future and help to take us back to the Championship.

Loans are useful but they can't form the spine of your team. Fortunately the majority of our first eleven are all on permanent deals. Our loan players are generally either fringe players or youngsters wanting the opportunity to impress. In terms of basic squad building TM has done it the right way.

[Bigdoggsteel]

44 minutes ago, BenRTID said:

I have been calling for Chapman in the starting eleven for a couple of weeks now, even though I had a seed of doubt in my mind over his influence in the game over 90 minutes. The way he plays when he only has 15/20 minutes is explosive, so he would have to adapt his play over 90 mins and pick and choose the moments to take a man on...but I still think (or thought) he'd done enough to show us what he can do from the start, and especially with Conway still out injured.

However...he came onto the pitch with 30 minutes to go vs Gillingham and showed me another side to him that I hadn't previously seen. 

1. A well deserved booking for a woeful dive 

2. Lucky to escape without a booking inside the 6 yard box when he manhandled his man during a corner in something that wouldn't have looked out of place in a WWE ring!

In my mind, he came onto the pitch with a the wrong attitude. It stunk of self-important or entitlement, something which an 18 yr old should not be displaying when he is still learning the game.

I hope TM saw this and had a word in his ear. If he did see it, he has for sure proven himself right in his decision to not yet start Chapman.

Bags of ability but needs to work on his mental approach.

Good post and sums up my thoughts exactly. Bennett is a far more reliable option to start IMO 

[Tom]

He looked pretty knackered towards the end but he is so explosive that it's not surprising; you literally are on the edge your seat when he gets the ball.

Special special talent but I may agree that he is best off the bench for the time being.

He's a full backs worst nightmare - especially if they are tired and on a booking and he comes on full of beans.

[donnermeat]

2 hours ago, Tom said:

He looked pretty knackered towards the end but he is so explosive that it's not surprising; you literally are on the edge your seat when he gets the ball.

Special special talent but I may agree that he is best off the bench for the time being.

He's a full backs worst nightmare - especially if they are tired and on a booking and he comes on full of beans.

All he needs is the chicken to go with those beans and we would have a real player on our hands.

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, donnermeat said:

All he needs is the chicken to go with those beans and we would have a real player on our hands.

I am sure that could be easily arranged