Jump to content
IGNORED

Liam Walsh could play this season


The Journalist

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, daored said:

 

Same must be true for Morrell as came back before season officially ended ?

Wow if we got Walsh and Morrell back it would be like having a new midfield. It may not work but it's gotta be better than what we've got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

In fairness, realistically, what’s the worst that could happen. The midfield couldn’t get any worse than it was against Blackburn. 

Their  hamstrings pop . Seen lots of muscle injuries because players are not up to sped yet. Agree , the midfield can’t get much worse but the seasons gone anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

So they haven’t trained at all for months but you want to chuck them straight . ???

Did you miss the first three words of my last post??? ???

41 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

So they haven’t trained at all for months but you want to chuck them straight . ???

Did you miss the first three words of my last post??? ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Top Robin said:

Wow if we got Walsh and Morrell back it would be like having a new midfield. It may not work but it's gotta be better than what we've got.

Give LJ time and he'd soon have them playing like the old midfield. :shocking:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetically though if all were available I'd consider something like:

                   Maenpaa

       Moore Kalas Benkovic

Hunt Walsh Nagy DaSilva

                 Palmer

           Wells Afobe

Perm maybe one out of Wells or Afobe for Weimann if concerns about fitness or energy. Likewise those central areas ot a given- could easily field something like Walsh, Morrell and one of Nagy, Massengo, Smith- or even could Walsh play between the midfield and attack, not quite in the Palmer role but supporting the strike pair? Moore-Kalas-Benkovic is a back 3 that could stylistically bring the ball out more easily and be less easy to exploit for pace on the break- all technically sound to varying degrees so none of e.g. 'Give Baker the ball as he canb't do much' or 'Target Williams as he's quite old and therefore can be got at with pace'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
1 hour ago, Wade Wilson said:

Let’s all calm down a bit, we don’t even know if they’ve trained. We have players who have trained and still weren’t up to full fitness and even if Walsh etc have trained with the reserves or something (Are the reserves/youth even training? No idea) they won’t have any match experience. They’d be weeks, weeks, away from starting. 

Also we have to assume that he's improved as a player as was deemed surplus before. 

We must remember he has been playing at a lower level. 

 

I'm interested what this refers to.....

Availability is based on a limited number of other factors the parent club has to take into account as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, phantom said:

Also we have to assume that he's improved as a player as was deemed surplus before. 

We must remember he has been playing at a lower level. 

 

I'm interested what this refers to.....

Availability is based on a limited number of other factors the parent club has to take into account as well.

Gregor indicating its things like how many players they have available, eg if Maenpaa hadn't signed a new contract, Gillmartin would go on the bench, if he got injured as well then Max could sit on the bench, at least thats the gist I got

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule for GK makes this simplistic, outfield players less so.

To expand:

GK is specialist. Therefore it’s always been the case that with injuries, outside of windows, you could replace players. No reason to suspect that if (say) Niki and Bents were unavailable, Max could come in on the same basis.

Outfield a bit more nuanced. It’s not specialised, so losing (say) Kalas wouldn’t mean we’d have carte Blanche to play Moore, as we could change formation.

With that in mind. 
 

The logical reading of the rule is that for outfield players, you can add a prior loanee to the squad if your squad is smaller than at the time of the last date of available recall for the loan - and it has to be absent injury. I.e we can recall (play) a loanee if we have lost players, through non renewal of contract, if they were available to us as at the closure of the Jan window.

The players ‘lost’ from that point are Henriksen. Wright and Taylor don’t count as already out on loan so not available.

Therefore, I *think* that we have one theoretical squad place post Henriksens last contracted date. Logic tells me we could choose one prior loanee, irrespective of position, to add to the squad post end of June and be both within moral and literal interpretation of rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Gregor said one of the requirements is this which isn’t particularly helpful. Presume that means you can only use them if you don’t have enough other players to fill starting 11 plus bench. 

‘without including the Player on the Team Sheet, the Transferor Club would be unable to fulfil all available places on the Team Sheet’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, hodge said:

We're well stocked for players so seems unlikely, Walsh or Morrell may be able to make the bench

 

Gregor sets out the following criteria that must be satisfied before a returning loanee can play. I suspect the one in bold might be tricky to honestly satisfy?

- the Player is returning from a curtailed division

- the Transferee Club has not qualified to participate in a Play-Off Competition

- without including the Player on the Team Sheet, the Transferor Club would be unable to fulfil all available places on the Team Sheet

- the Transferor Club gives priority to its under 23 players, Scholars and other Academy Players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club; and

- the Player has not been on loan to more than one Club during Season 2019/20.

Also, the fourth point is unclear. Does it mean that Walsh, despite presumably qualifying as an U23 player, must be put behind all other "under 23 players, Scholars and other Academy Players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club" or doe s he, as a returning loanee, simply become one of the many "under 23 players...who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club."

If Gregor has copied out the wording of the rule change then the drafting is ******* terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Gregor sets out the following criteria that must be satisfied before a returning loanee can play. I suspect the one in bold might be tricky to honestly satisfy?

- the Player is returning from a curtailed division

- the Transferee Club has not qualified to participate in a Play-Off Competition

- without including the Player on the Team Sheet, the Transferor Club would be unable to fulfil all available places on the Team Sheet

- the Transferor Club gives priority to its under 23 players, Scholars and other Academy Players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club; and

- the Player has not been on loan to more than one Club during Season 2019/20.

Also, the fourth point is unclear. Does it mean that Walsh, despite presumably qualifying as an U23 player, must be put behind all other "under 23 players, Scholars and other Academy Players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club" or doe s he, as a returning loanee, simply become one of the many "under 23 players...who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club."

If Gregor has copied out the wording of the rule change then the drafting is ******* terrible.

Well none of our 23's have made a 1st team appearance this season so wouldn't apply to us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hodge said:

Well none of our 23's have made a 1st team appearance this season so wouldn't apply to us

Tbh I don't have a list of all those who have made appearances for us this season. Regardless, it doesn't specify that it has to be this season. The way it is written in Gregor's report suggests it's any first team appearance. The defined term "League Match" doesn't specify that it is for the current season (it refers to a match in the "League competition" and that refers to the "annual League competition". That is unclear as to whether the appearance has to be in 2019/20. 

To me it reads as a list like so:

Priority goes to:

  1. under 23 players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club;
  2. Scholars who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club;
  3. other Academy Players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club; and
  4. returning loanees.

An alternative construction is that priority goes to:

  1. under 23 players;
  2. Scholars;
  3. other Academy Players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club; and
  4. returning loanees.

Presumably the actual law/regulation is clearer and Gregor just summarised it for the purposes of the Post, but it's a pretty crucial difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Tbh I don't have a list of all those who have made appearances for us this season. Regardless, it doesn't specify that it has to be this season. The way it is written in Gregor's report suggests it's any first team appearance. The defined term "League Match" doesn't specify that it is for the current season (it refers to a match in the "League competition" and that refers to the "annual League competition". That is unclear as to whether the appearance has to be in 2019/20. 

To me it reads as a list like so:

Priority goes to:

  1. under 23 players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club;
  2. Scholars who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club;
  3. other Academy Players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club; and
  4. returning loanees.

An alternative construction is that priority goes to:

  1. under 23 players;
  2. Scholars;
  3. other Academy Players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club; and
  4. returning loanees.

Presumably the actual law/regulation is clearer and Gregor just summarised it for the purposes of the Post, but it's a pretty crucial difference.

In that case then only Freddie Hinds would apply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wade Wilson said:

Let’s all calm down a bit, we don’t even know if they’ve trained.

any training will be self-training.

We have players who have trained and still weren’t up to full fitness and even if Walsh etc have trained with the reserves or something (Are the reserves/youth even training? No idea)

no, they have not. They were sent home from Failand very early on in Covid, and have not returned.  LJ has previously said he wouldn’t risk transmission by bring the likes of Walsh back into the training group.  Of course this might change things.

they won’t have any match experience. They’d be weeks, weeks, away from starting.
I agree, would need to be desperate, and I know Blackburn was bad, but Sheffield Wednesday is not gonna see any of them.  Plus they have to go through testing protocols first before they can join back up.

 

5 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

One line stood out form that Brum press release: "Availability is based on a limited number of other factors the parent club has to take into account as well."

Has anyone found the actual law change? Can't seem to find it by searching.

⬇️⬇️⬇️

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Gregor sets out the following criteria that must be satisfied before a returning loanee can play. I suspect the one in bold might be tricky to honestly satisfy?

- the Player is returning from a curtailed division

- the Transferee Club has not qualified to participate in a Play-Off Competition

- without including the Player on the Team Sheet, the Transferor Club would be unable to fulfil all available places on the Team Sheet

- the Transferor Club gives priority to its under 23 players, Scholars and other Academy Players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club; and

- the Player has not been on loan to more than one Club during Season 2019/20.

Also, the fourth point is unclear. Does it mean that Walsh, despite presumably qualifying as an U23 player, must be put behind all other "under 23 players, Scholars and other Academy Players who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club" or doe s he, as a returning loanee, simply become one of the many "under 23 players...who have made at least one First Team appearance in a League Match (or a Premier League Match) for the Transferor Club."

If Gregor has copied out the wording of the rule change then the drafting is ******* terrible.

I think this makes including our loanees very difficult.

That bold statement means we are gonna have to have a few injuries before any of the loanees can be considered.

I reckon there are 26 players, 25 if James Morton hasn’t been training.  24 if Pedro is injured.  23 if Rene is classed as a coach now.  So would still need 4 more to get injured to free-up a space!

87164055-16E3-4153-AF2A-261D9723CD1E.thumb.jpeg.27de0bc2ef89d3a4770d3300da400069.jpeg

3 hours ago, hodge said:

Well none of our 23's have made a 1st team appearance this season so wouldn't apply to us

Do we know if it’s this season, or ever?  Did Hinds ever make a league appearance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do we know if it’s this season, or ever?

IMO it is ambiguous but leans more towards the "ever" option. This from reading the EFL reg definitions of "League Match" and related. Although this is all caveated by not actually seeing the law change - all we've got is a Brummie press release and Gregor's summary.

Could you argue that you don't have to include two goalies on your bench before you can dip into your pool of returning loanees? Suspect there's nothing in the laws about it so you'd be chancing a challenge from the league if you, say, had Maenpaa in the first XI, Bentley on the bench, and then left Wollacott out of the squad in order to play Walsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

IMO it is ambiguous but leans more towards the "ever" option. This from reading the EFL reg definitions of "League Match" and related. Although this is all caveated by not actually seeing the law change - all we've got is a Brummie press release and Gregor's summary.

Could you argue that you don't have to include two goalies on your bench before you can dip into your pool of returning loanees? Suspect there's nothing in the laws about it so you'd be chancing a challenge from the league if you, say, had Maenpaa in the first XI, Bentley on the bench, and then left Wollacott out of the squad in order to play Walsh.

Yes, you’d expect that to be reasonable....but this is the EFL.

Would imagine this has come about for two main reasons:

  1. Integrity of league, with clubs unable to retain players on short terms deals who are out of contact
  2. weather....unfair if a club cannot name 9 subs due to no1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...