Hmmm. I'm normally a fully paid-up toe-nailer, but I've got to go with the doom-mongerers on this one.
Loan signings in late March when you're in the kind of scrap we're in should fall into one of two camps in my own humble opinion; injury cover and tactical change. Potenially a third would be a substantial up-skilling of a playing position, but I'll come back to that.
There is no way that this could realistically be classed as injury cover as we have more than enough strikers. How many have we had on our books this season? It must be approaching some kind of record.
As for being a signing to change the tactical shape of the team; its a striker. We've got/had the big target man. We've got/had the runner. We've got/had the grafter. We've got/had (supposidly) the Devine-esque lazy finisher. And none have been able to create a finish for the system Tisdale employs on the field. There is nothing more in this particular context that I can see a loaned striker changing. As has been alluded to, a winger (for example) could have potentially had far more impetus.
As for the third option; I wont write off a kid before he's pulled on the shirt, but if he is classed as an up-skill I'll eat my hat. Again, as has been said, if he has the ability to do it at this level, why would a team chasing a step up to this level look at getting him out? If he is an ultra-quick fox in the box or target man of super-hero strength and precision, why would he be joining us in March in leiu of a player going the other way deemed already not good enough.
Further more, on his age. Again, not passing judgement yet, but I pray to god he is a Stanno or a Mackie in terms or temperment. He has to be up for a battle, and now.
As for signing him to have a look for next season; hasn't Tis' policy in the past been to generally "wait and see where we are" before casting the net over new signings. And if it's true that a) the kid expects to be back at Rotherham next year and b) we havn't negotiated a pre-purchase price into his loan contract (which we shan't know) then in light of all the above it makes even less sense.
Far far too many questions which I'm sadly expecting never to be answered.
Loan signings in late March when you're in the kind of scrap we're in should fall into one of two camps in my own humble opinion; injury cover and tactical change. Potenially a third would be a substantial up-skilling of a playing position, but I'll come back to that.
There is no way that this could realistically be classed as injury cover as we have more than enough strikers. How many have we had on our books this season? It must be approaching some kind of record.
As for being a signing to change the tactical shape of the team; its a striker. We've got/had the big target man. We've got/had the runner. We've got/had the grafter. We've got/had (supposidly) the Devine-esque lazy finisher. And none have been able to create a finish for the system Tisdale employs on the field. There is nothing more in this particular context that I can see a loaned striker changing. As has been alluded to, a winger (for example) could have potentially had far more impetus.
As for the third option; I wont write off a kid before he's pulled on the shirt, but if he is classed as an up-skill I'll eat my hat. Again, as has been said, if he has the ability to do it at this level, why would a team chasing a step up to this level look at getting him out? If he is an ultra-quick fox in the box or target man of super-hero strength and precision, why would he be joining us in March in leiu of a player going the other way deemed already not good enough.
Further more, on his age. Again, not passing judgement yet, but I pray to god he is a Stanno or a Mackie in terms or temperment. He has to be up for a battle, and now.
As for signing him to have a look for next season; hasn't Tis' policy in the past been to generally "wait and see where we are" before casting the net over new signings. And if it's true that a) the kid expects to be back at Rotherham next year and b) we havn't negotiated a pre-purchase price into his loan contract (which we shan't know) then in light of all the above it makes even less sense.
Far far too many questions which I'm sadly expecting never to be answered.
Last edited:
