Thought this an interesting critique on Liverpool's approach to loans and some of the problems that can occur with the current system especially as applied to players "stockpiled" that were previously getting first team football at their original clubs.
http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2015/09/liverpool-loanees-the-reds-on-borrowed-time/?wt=5
Chelsea Technical Director Michael Emenalo said last year when he was asked about Chelsea’s loan policy: “We think this is the best way to go. We identified that for young players, the ages of 18 to 21 are the most difficult time as they wonder if they are good enough for the Chelsea first team and what is next for them….We felt it is better for them at that age to go on loan to somewhere where they get visibility and good competition. For psychological and physical reasons that is the best thing to do at that age.”
Now I know this isn’t Liverpool. But it’s an interesting insight into the mind of those controlling the destiny of a young footballer. The first part I find very frustrating when we are often talking about foreign players who haven’t come through the academy. Instead of buying them and then wondering if they are good enough, and what is next for them, why not just leave them where they are? Presumably that club were doing a perfectly good job with them if the player managed to catch your eye. They might have even had a plan involving putting them in their first team. They might have even been in their first team. So leave him there until he’s good enough to get into yours. Instead of throwing a load of money at him, promising the world and then wondering what the hell to do with him during this ‘difficult time’.
Then he talks about visibility. What does he mean by visibility? Does the manager of a football team need to see him play for another club to monitor his progress? Can’t he just watch him play for the Under-21s? Doesn’t having him at your football club actually make him more visible to you? Or are they already talking about selling him on for a profit and making him more visible to buyers?
The last part is interesting, too. Talking about what is ‘psychologically and physically’ the best thing for a young player. Is moving a young player around different countries what is ‘psychologically’ best for them or is it keeping them in a settled environment? Are we talking about their welfare as human beings here or just footballers? Doesn’t one link into the other anyway?
....
Ilori, along with Teixeira, caught our eye playing for a Sporting Lisbon development team that gave Liverpool a bit of a thumping. He made his debut for the Sporting Lisbon first team aged 18 and had played 12 times, both in the league and in Europe, before Liverpool paid £7million for him.
They then, as Michael Emenalo might describe it, wondered what on earth to do with him at this ‘difficult time’. Because apparently leaving him at Sporting Lisbon and seeing how he got on wasn’t an option. So we had a look at him for four months and presumably let him get settled in a house and then moved him to Granada for the sake of nine first team games of football.
The next season it was deemed that the best place for him to learn how to play for Liverpool was Bordeaux (I assume we checked if he could speak French first), where he played 12 times. Then he came home and we wondered what to do with him again. Before sending him to Aston Villa and telling them if they liked them they could keep him, as we’d tried nothing and we were all out of ideas.
I’m not particularly angry about us letting him go. It’s probably for the best now. I just can’t help but feel the whole thing has been a rubbish experience for the lad. He could have stayed at Sporting Lisbon, a perfectly good football club, and played over 50 times for them by now. He would probably be a much better footballer than he is now for the experience. The kind of defender who Liverpool might be looking at for the first team.
