I think a balance is required for an ambitious club. We gave a few academy players chances last season, Flynn Downes and Tristan Nydam clocked up double figure appearances last season. Dozzell, who started the first game of the season, presumably would have also got double figures if he hadn't been injured all season. Our loanees last season played a combined 104 league games last season. That seems a lot, but Norwich City, with a higher-rated academy and a reputation for playing their youngsters, gave their loanees a combined 98 games last season, so not much difference there. The three promoted teams, for reference, makes interesting reading. Wolves gave their accumulated loanees 181 games (two of whom they went on to sign permanently, and those deals were already in place, so reduce 87 games from that tally, if you're inclined to), 154 games for Fulham's loanees, and 68 for Cardiff. This is despite all three teams bringing in several permanent signings. My point is that loans should not be sniffed at or ruled out entirely, and if they can improve the quality and excitement around a team, then I say go for it. My issue is with the amount of loanees, and I feel we have too many at the moment. Do we need both Edun and Chalobah when we have Downes, Dozzell, Nydam, Skuse, Huws, Bishop (don't laugh), and Adeyemi (please don't laugh)? Does Jordan Graham represent a vast improvement on what we've got? Were we naive to be overly-reliant on Jon Walters, who had come off the back of a serious injury last season, to get the goals?
Marriott and Waghorn on target for Derby again tonight against Chelsea. Meanwhile Town can't buy a goal.
I think the sale of Waghorn probably cost Hurst his job as he would no doubt have weighed in with at least 3-4 crucial goals.
They have Tom Lawrence in their side as well. Just goes to show even if we didn't spend big on transfers we'd have a top squad if we just didn't let go of our good players. Hope Lambert can bring some common sense and put an end to this madness.