It really does seem your views on loaning out promising players is contradictory, you state that Lille are sh*te and so the resulting impression on the player is negative, or to use your own words 'the end product is tempered'. To be expected when using your own words again 'Lille are sh*te'.
His actual performance level would be considerably enhanced because Lille are as sh*te as you describe.
He does indeed have all the attributes, so much so it leads me to wonder if any of our former managers such as Dalglish, Paisley, Houllier or Shankly for instance would be agreeable to the practice of putting our young thoroughbreds under the guidance of 'sh*te' teams.
Not having a go here by the way, although you seem to think otherwise, it does puzzle me the way we are in agreement about the lads mentioned and their potential and prospects yet you wish to put them in an arena that you yourself describe in a negative manner; it does seem perverse and interprets as 'if they can struggle through the adversity presented it could improve them'.
How much better to have a controlled medium with an enhanced ability to monitor progress?
Definition of LFC's coaching facilities.
Not at all. Loan a player to a team which have a similar outlook on how to play the game to us then it can be of great benefit. As this is clearly regarding Origi and Ibe I'll use them as examples.
Derby are very much an attacking team, they are drilled every day to practice attacking movement, and when they get on the pitch they are encouraged to try things and take risks - they are better than their competition so they can do this. This is a good environment to send a young player on loan to. They get plenty of minutes, they develop much faster. They play progressive football.
Lille play dour, dull stuff. They are conservative and rarely play much more sophisticated than a long ball over the top. For a player who is looking to enter a fast paced attacking team next year, this is not a good use of his time. If however, there was reason to believe that Origi would not have got many minutes here (there isn't, but talking hypothetically) this year, and we'd have power to select which team he went on loan to, I wouldn't have been against that. As it stands, I'm pretty certain that the loan back was the contingent on which actually got the player, so it makes little sense for me to whinge about it.
It must also be noted that you assumed I was against the loan, whilst I didn't say I was in my post - it was entirely a post about not being able to judge the player effectively whilst he is. You assumption is actually correct, but this is because I believed Origi was good enough to play for us at the beginning of the year. I am worried about your tendency to argue against what you think I said without actually reading it properly.
As for the other points, football has changed. We used to buy players and we wouldn't see them for six months whilst they played for the reserves. The standard of what constitutes reserve teams has dropped, so loans have become necessary. We have evidence on this front; Dalglish loaned players out in 11/12 (Shelvey that year is an almost identical situation to Ibe)
You are misunderstand my use of tempered as well. Drop me into Real Madrid, I'll score far more goals than anyone would expect someone of my non-existent talent to score (scoring one would be major upset with the bookies
). Drop a talented player into a poor team and he will score less than one would expect from a player of that caliber. Thus my comment is saying his end product is reduced ceteris paribus and his talented should not be judged solely by the goals scored column. It was not a comment to suggest his development was being held back.
'if they can struggle through the adversity presented it could improve them' - I've not said that or anything like it, so being generous I would describe it as stylistically a very odd choice to put it in quotation marks. As it is entirely a strawman, I don't even see the need to bother responding to it.
It is clear you still aren't getting my argument regarding loans. To summarize briefly; The team you send them to matters, particularly their style of play, but first and foremost minutes are crucial in development. A player will develop more in a worse coaching system (within reason), but playing regularly, than in a better coaching system getting very few minutes. The difference between the coaching levels can be alleviated further if the teams have similar philosophies.
