Jack to go out on loan?: Page 4 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Jack to go out on loan?

goon

General wrote:
As I said the evidence is strongly stacked against us. None of our CMs has lasted a full season without picking up injuries and the jury is still out on Elneny and Xhaka. Wenger is yet to prove that he can see out a full season without presiding over an injury crisis.

That's note really true, Santi hardly suffered injuries at all in his first 3 season, in fact he played 38 and 37 league games. Coq picked up an injury last year after a bad challenge but he's not showed any signs of being injury prone, neither have Elneny or Xhaka.

Also it's a bit of a fallacy to argue that we should keep Wilshere of all players around on a basis that we might pick up injuries.

est

I think a spell in a less physically demanding league under a different manager could be good for Jack.

Mirth

General wrote:
As I said the evidence is strongly stacked against us. None of our CMs has lasted a full season without picking up injuries and the jury is still out on Elneny and Xhaka. Wenger is yet to prove that he can see out a full season without presiding over an injury crisis.

Well, the jury's in for Jack and we all agree he's a crock. Maybe we should sign another midfielder for depth, but Wilshere's done very little to help us out during an injury crisis for five(!) years now.

lorddulaarsenal

And Welbz

Mirth

General wrote:
Maybe the club would be smart enough to insert a recall clause because we are going to need it.

It depends on where he's going but if he's loaned to another Premier league club, the rules state that he can't be recalled to play in the first team.

In other words, they can be recalled but they can't be registered to the parent team. So we could call back Wilshere but he wouldn't be elgible to play in the league, although he could in the Champions League. Or he could be recalled to be sold.

General

goon wrote:
General wrote:
As I said the evidence is strongly stacked against us. None of our CMs has lasted a full season without picking up injuries and the jury is still out on Elneny and Xhaka. Wenger is yet to prove that he can see out a full season without presiding over an injury crisis.

That's note really true, Santi hardly suffered injuries at all in his first 3 season, in fact he played 38 and 37 league games. Coq picked up an injury last year after a bad challenge but he's not showed any signs of being injury prone, neither have Elneny or Xhaka.

Also it's a bit of a fallacy to argue that we should keep Wilshere of all players around on a basis that we might pick up injuries.

What exactly is your point. Picking up injuries and being injury prone are two different things.

speedy

Overall we've added 3 first teamers. kos sanchez and ozil need new bumper contracts. The wage bill will eat up a massive chunk of next years transfer funds if we're not careful.

goon

Point is pretty clear no? If they're not prone to injuries there's little to suggest that we'll need to keep a 6th centre mid around and have more depth in that area than any other area of the pitch.

Claudius

Captain wrote:
But, as said, that's because the cover was perenially injured players.

Not sure why this isn't abundantly apparent. We went into the season with 3 perma-crocks in central midfield (Arteta, Rosicky and Wilshere), and were depending on 4 other guys (Ramsey, Cazorla, Flamini, Coq) to bascially hold the fort for 9 months, and one of those guys was finished (Flamini). This season is completely different.

goon

Yep. Most of us went into last season thinking we're screwed the moment we pick up a single injury.

General

Not being prone to injuries doesn't make you immune to picking up injuries. Whether it's by design, training methods or playing style, we do pick up injuires particularly in the midfield area and we have not navigated a full season under Wenger without our first choice mids having a stint on the injury table. And I do believe Wilshere can make a decent contribution if managed properly. If people believe that he's injury prone what is to say that he won't pick up further injuries whiles out on loan. I think the current situation at the club is actually more conducive for him because we have depth, he's not under pressure to deliver and he can work his way to full fitness by being eased in slowly. He quite clearly is not ready to play 90mins football on a regular basis and this whole idea of a loan defeats the objective. A less physically demanding league and new training methods might help him but whether this will prepare him for the rigours of the PL is another matter. How many of our players have had successful loan spells in recent years?

Burnwinter

If our design, or training methods, or playing style tend to injure midfielders, surely this club is the last place Jack Wilshere should be.

Plenty of evidence to back up this claim, notably the last five years.

marv3llous

Point is that we have Xhaka, Santi, Ramsey, Elneny and Coq for two places and none of them, besides Ramsey has any previous of being an 'injury prone' so i have no idea why people are afraid of an injury crisis suddenly? If we had 6 fit CBs for 2 spots, would you be reluctant on letting 1 of them leave to go on loan?

Qwiss

WE don't needs Jack for midfield but we do need him for the wings and AM. We are very short there and we can't afford to lose Campbell and Wilshere from there in one window considering we haven't signed anyone for those positions.

QuincyAbeyie

That's pretty much it. Jack is for me, depending on Walcott's form, first or second choice on the wing now.

Edit: If Ramsey starts in midfield, that is.

JazzG

He might not be happy with playing time to to though and probably wants to be playing week in week out. I hope wherever he goes it is a tactically astute manager he works under. His biggest problem is his positioning, he is always out of position or in the wrong position. A spell out somewhere to work on that would do him wonders imo.

General

Qwiss! wrote:
WE don't needs Jack for midfield but we do need him for the wings and AM. We are very short there and we can't afford to lose Campbell and Wilshere from there in one window considering we haven't signed anyone for those positions.

That's a good point. Don't forget the cascading effect. Walcott or Ox pick up an injury, Ramsey moves to the wing, suddenly we are a man light in the middle.

Qwiss

He can't play week in week out because he's not fit week in week out. He needs to take it easy not complain about needing more game time.

Claudius

Qwiss! wrote:
WE don't needs Jack for midfield but we do need him for the wings and AM. We are very short there and we can't afford to lose Campbell and Wilshere from there in one window considering we haven't signed anyone for those positions.

Good point. However, I would challenge by asking 'where is Jack's future?' If we see him as the natural Cazorla replacement (because he is the only guy in the team who could grow into that exact role next to Xhaka), then he is probably better off focusing on developing this skill set elsewhere.

Mirth

General wrote:
Not being prone to injuries doesn't make you immune to picking up injuries. Whether it's by design, training methods or playing style, we do pick up injuires particularly in the midfield area and we have not navigated a full season under Wenger without our first choice mids having a stint on the injury table. And I do believe Wilshere can make a decent contribution if managed properly. If people believe that he's injury prone what is to say that he won't pick up further injuries whiles out on loan. I think the current situation at the club is actually more conducive for him because we have depth, he's not under pressure to deliver and he can work his way to full fitness by being eased in slowly. He quite clearly is not ready to play 90mins football on a regular basis and this whole idea of a loan defeats the objective. A less physically demanding league and new training methods might help him but whether this will prepare him for the rigours of the PL is another matter. How many of our players have had successful loan spells in recent years?

If the problem is at the club (which is a reasonable argument) then we've got bigger issues to worry about than Wilshere anyway.

At any case, odds are it's Wilshere who's pushing for the move right now and I don't blame him for doing so. I also think it's better for us in the long run to get him playing week in, week out.

« Previous Page Next Page »