2019/20 Tom Davies

[4737carlin]

I still think we should follow the same plan as with JJ Kenny.
Loan him out to an inferior but technical league to rebuild confidence where he either sinks or swims but also puts him in the shop window, I’m not sure sending to the championship with too many games and no guarantee of playing helps at all.

Thing is though JJ looked like a much better talent when he played for Everton and seemed to be more focused on football, while Tom was more focused on charity shop finds

 

[LEONARD]

Answers please.

(1) Tom is working flat out at Finch farm in order to get his place back in the team?

(2) Tom is pocketing his zillions, and off buying clobber in Dubai?

 

[AsiaAsia82]

Thing is though JJ looked like a much better talent when he played for Everton and seemed to be more focused on football, while Tom was more focused on charity shop finds

Disagree with that Tom has a lot talent but I think it’s been a bit stifled/restricted with being in/out, different roles and even being bagged with the captaincy at some points.
He needs a consistency to develop I think.
Plus I’d rather him be in charity shops than some antics other young players get up to.
I think if we’re not careful we’ll miss his talent

 

[4737carlin]

Disagree with that Tom has a lot talent but I think it’s been a bit stifled/restricted with being in/out, different roles and even being bagged with the captaincy at some points.
He needs a consistency to develop I think.
Plus I’d rather him be in charity shops than some antics other young players get up to.
I think if we’re not careful we’ll miss his talent

I think its the other way around, if he isnt carful he will waste what talent he has got by not being focused on football, and he clearly isnt. When he got chances he didnt take them, we have just had a window pass and it was looking more and more clear he wasnt going to get game time at Everton but how much effort did he make to find a loan?
If Morgan Schniderlin can work his way into Marcos side im sure Tom cwould of done, but he hasnt

 

[blueblue]

I think its the other way around, if he isnt carful he will waste what talent he has got by not being focused on football, and he clearly isnt. When he got chances he didnt take them, we have just had a window pass and it was looking more and more clear he wasnt going to get game time at Everton but how much effort did he make to find a loan?
If Morgan Schniderlin can work his way into Marcos side im sure Tom cwould of done, but he hasnt

Do we know that Tom isn't as focused as he should be ?
The manager never has a bad word to say about him and even made him captain for a while last year.
I think we need to just wait and see what develops.
The fact that he wears clothes that look more like curtains than anything else should not cloud our opinion of him, although that isn't always easy.

 

[JimmyK]

This increasingly my view with loans. They are often championed by people are a one size fits all solution. I don't really see any evidence that they work. Even for Barkley, I am not sure he really improved much going out on loan. He improved when a new manager came in, changed the system and found a physical, quick top draw striker to play ahead of him. Fair being fair I would say Coleman benefitted though.

The thing to me though is Osman and Coleman are both quite unique cases. Osman would have been in the first team squad at 19 had it not been for consecutive cruciate injuries on both knees. He then had the added benefit of a summer from hell meaning players weren't brought in and he was last man standing. Coleman came to the game late, so I can see how regular time would have helped him, but again it's a unique situation isn't it?

People often herald Chelsea's use of loans as the example of how it works. However pre this transfer ban how many of their young loanees have actually returned to play first team football? Yes some players have been sold on, but you really can't compare De Bruyne, Salah, Lukaku etc who were experienced top class footballers to most 18/19 year old graduates.

To me, the loan system is basically there because clubs can't male their minds up on players. There's also an element of clubs trying to raise as much money from young players as possible. Which at one level is fair enough, but you can't get massively annoyed when young players replicate that. In fact young players need to do that far more.

If I had a child at an academy, or was advising one, I would not put up with the send them out on loan schtick. If I was Gibson at us, I'd be wanting to be involved in the first team set up, or I would back myself to move elsewhere, if needs be to a club that had a 3 or 4 year commitment to me, not just one who are plugging a gap for a season where you will then leave. I'd only sign a contract if that was on offer.

As a final case in point, we can agree on 2 or 3 players in the last 20 years who've benefitted from loans. The list of players who have gone backwards with them is more notable. For me Galloway, Garbutt, Dowell in the last few years have all gone backwards after a loan move. I'm very nervous of the easy solution of just send all players out on loan as this one size fits all solution when it appears to be anything but.

I’ve commented on this before but I just thinks it’s really lazy and massively incorrect to say that Garbutt and Galloway went backwards after loans. Where’s your evidence for that? It’s purely and simply your perception of their ability that changed, not their actual ability.

There’s a reason why we were loaning them in the first place; they weren’t good enough to play for us. If they were that good we wouldn’t have been loaning them out, and in Garbutt’s Case it certainly wouldn’t have been to lower league teams. All that’s happened is you thought they were really good prospects, and when their careers didn’t follow the path you expected, instead of doing what most people would do and thinking you misjudged their ceiling from your limited viewings of them, you decide that the loan has ruined them and they you were actually right to begin with.

Loans are a good idea for many players but aren’t a guaranteed success. They’re also done for many different reasons. Trying to suggest that loans in general are either a good or bad thing is just crazy, it all depends on the circumstances.

 

[Blue Roo]

I’ve commented on this before but I just thinks it’s really lazy and massively incorrect to say that Garbutt and Galloway went backwards after loans. Where’s your evidence for that? It’s purely and simply your perception of their ability that changed, not their actual ability.

There’s a reason why we were loaning them in the first place; they weren’t good enough to play for us. If they were that good we wouldn’t have been loaning them out, and in Garbutt’s Case it certainly wouldn’t have been to lower league teams. All that’s happened is you thought they were really good prospects, and when their careers didn’t follow the path you expected, instead of doing what most people would do and thinking you misjudged their ceiling from your limited viewings of them, you decide that the loan has ruined them and they you were actually right to begin with.

Loans are a good idea for many players but aren’t a guaranteed success. They’re also done for many different reasons. Trying to suggest that loans in general are either a good or bad thing is just crazy, it all depends on the circumstances.

Nah loans are becoming one of the scourges of the game

 

[WeAreEvertonians]

Marco Silva has gone up in my estimations for giving Davies a reality check, he’s done nothing for months in the first team and doesn’t deserve to be in the squad. He gets praise for the Huddersfield away game, look at Huddersfield now, needs to do more to achieve that potential he has when he was asked to train with England senior squad when he was with u18’s

 

[Osamabindiesel]

Might have become disillusioned with the club after Koemageddon. In hindsight he and Dom could have really used a loan or two. I think having that dominant season on loan somewhere does a lot to build confidence and neither of them really had that opportunity because of our lack of options.

 

[catcherintherye]

I’ve commented on this before but I just thinks it’s really lazy and massively incorrect to say that Garbutt and Galloway went backwards after loans. Where’s your evidence for that? It’s purely and simply your perception of their ability that changed, not their actual ability.

There’s a reason why we were loaning them in the first place; they weren’t good enough to play for us. If they were that good we wouldn’t have been loaning them out, and in Garbutt’s Case it certainly wouldn’t have been to lower league teams. All that’s happened is you thought they were really good prospects, and when their careers didn’t follow the path you expected, instead of doing what most people would do and thinking you misjudged their ceiling from your limited viewings of them, you decide that the loan has ruined them and they you were actually right to begin with.

Loans are a good idea for many players but aren’t a guaranteed success. They’re also done for many different reasons. Trying to suggest that loans in general are either a good or bad thing is just crazy, it all depends on the circumstances.

There seems to be a lot of assumptions with this to try and justify what appears to be your position that loans are a good thing.

There is no inherent measurement as to how good footballer is. We can look at stats to help but they would never solve the discussion. In that instance, it's very difficult to level of caste iron proof that either player went forward or backward, certainly not to satisfy I would sense you would want. If we take such a post modern position it is hard to prove or disprove anything mind.

The main evidence would be that both players went from being good enough to be playing for a team that finished in mid table, to not being good enough for said team, and in essence not being good enough to play for most sides in the championship. From what I can see Brandon Galloway has played 1 minute for a side struggling in the championship. Garbutt is now in league 1. At one stage Eddie Howe was keen to take him to a settled PL team.

If you want to make some complex argument, that this was always their then that is your right. I suspect 90%+ of people would disagree with you and that you would quibble the validity of that evidence but to me that would be very telling.

As for the stuff about me holding a view of them I'm afraid again that is not true. I did like the look of Garbutt but was never really sold on Galloway and always had issues with him. The idea that my opinion (which differs from what you suggest) explains how they got so many games for Everton pre-loan and then can't get games at Championship level afterwards seems a bit fanciful to me. I would humbly suggest you are pitching your own distaste (however understandable) of my posts fit evidence that is far more obscure and surprising than the suggestion that Galloway and Garbutt have regressed.

I agree on your final point and have said as much. My position that loans are a bad thing is an unfair caricature. I just don't believe they are the all singing all dancing solution to each player. I understand they can raise the profile of a player, help raise funds, at times be a last resort/compromise and even at some times can aid development. On most occasions though I just don't see players go on loan, then come back radically improved. I don't think the failure of us bringing through more players is also centrally down to our unwillingness to loan them out. It's an overly simplistic answer to a more complex question.

It appears to be a stick used to beat David Unsworth with.

 

[JimmyK]

There seems to be a lot of assumptions with this to try and justify what appears to be your position that loans are a good thing.

There is no inherent measurement as to how good footballer is. We can look at stats to help but they would never solve the discussion. In that instance, it's very difficult to level of caste iron proof that either player went forward or backward, certainly not to satisfy I would sense you would want. If we take such a post modern position it is hard to prove or disprove anything mind.

The main evidence would be that both players went from being good enough to be playing for a team that finished in mid table, to not being good enough for said team, and in essence not being good enough to play for most sides in the championship. From what I can see Brandon Galloway has played 1 minute for a side struggling in the championship. Garbutt is now in league 1. At one stage Eddie Howe was keen to take him to a settled PL team.

If you want to make some complex argument, that this was always their then that is your right. I suspect 90%+ of people would disagree with you and that you would quibble the validity of that evidence but to me that would be very telling.

As for the stuff about me holding a view of them I'm afraid again that is not true. I did like the look of Garbutt but was never really sold on Galloway and always had issues with him. The idea that my opinion (which differs from what you suggest) explains how they got so many games for Everton pre-loan and then can't get games at Championship level afterwards seems a bit fanciful to me. I would humbly suggest you are pitching your own distaste (however understandable) of my posts fit evidence that is far more obscure and surprising than the suggestion that Galloway and Garbutt have regressed.

I agree on your final point and have said as much. My position that loans are a bad thing is an unfair caricature. I just don't believe they are the all singing all dancing solution to each player. I understand they can raise the profile of a player, help raise funds, at times be a last resort/compromise and even at some times can aid development. On most occasions though I just don't see players go on loan, then come back radically improved. I don't think the failure of us bringing through more players is also centrally down to our unwillingness to loan them out. It's an overly simplistic answer to a more complex question.

It appears to be a stick used to beat David Unsworth with.

So your take away from my post saying that loans in themselves are neither a good or bad thing is that I think they’re a good thing. Forgive me if I don’t read the rest of war and peace after that won’t you.

 

[catcherintherye]

So your take away from my post saying that loans in themselves are neither a good or bad thing is that I think they’re a good thing. Forgive me if I don’t read the rest of war and peace after that won’t you.

No that wasn't the take away from the post. The take away from the post was that the majority of it was inaccurate information about what I do or don't believe and think which I took the time to correct.

Your final line was that loans are neither good or bad (which didn't contravene anything I had previously said) so I am unsure why there was the need to personalise the other aspects of the post. I addressed those points.

If you don't wish to acknowledge that it's of course entirely up to you. My advice would be, if you want to try to correct a poster take the time to read what they said, or if you feel it's as tedious as Tolstoy there's always the mute option available.

 

[HKIV]

If ever a player/club was likely to benefit from going out on loan this season or last Tom Davies is him.

He starred in the less than physically demanding under 23 league but declined alarmingly after a promising start in the prem.

He does not appear physically strong enough nor his skills good enough at present to be an effective midfielder in the top half of the prem.

He would possibly gain confidence and improve his physicality and skills at a level way above under 23 level but not in the red hot prem (championship). If he did not impress at that level we would know 99% he was not up to the prem and sell. If he showed a decent level of form but not enough to suggest he was up to the prem we could sell for a decent figure. If he proved to be an outstanding player at that level he would be given a chance back at Everton the following season.

Its not rocket science, quite a simple way of trying to find what one of your assets is worth and a good way of getting cash for it!

 

[HKIV]

The same would apply to DCL. Although I think we could get a reasonable figure from a Championship or desperate Prem league club in the next window.

He, unlike Davies has never shown remotely the skills required to be a starter for a team in the top half of the prem.

 

[JimmyK]

No that wasn't the take away from the post. The take away from the post was that the majority of it was inaccurate information about what I do or don't believe and think which I took the time to correct.

Your final line was that loans are neither good or bad (which didn't contravene anything I had previously said) so I am unsure why there was the need to personalise the other aspects of the post. I addressed those points.

If you don't wish to acknowledge that it's of course entirely up to you. My advice would be, if you want to try to correct a poster take the time to read what they said, or if you feel it's as tedious as Tolstoy there's always the mute option available.

Wow you’ve really taken my post to heart. I didn’t even mean ‘you’ as in the personal you just the general you, I obviously have no idea what you personally thought about Galloway, I thought that went without saying.

My final line didn’t contradict you you’re right, and not did I ever say it did. Yet you still came back with the first line of your post saying that my post said the exact opposite of what it actually said. And despite being pulled up on it you’re still arguing that you were right.

If I ever feel like ignoring someone on here I will, until then I’ll just be a normal person and be happy to read things I agree with and things I don’t. Radical I know. Finally Tolstoy isn’t tedious at all, you should try reading it before you comment, a bit like my post really.