Are Loanees Often Significant?

For every Daniel Sturridge, is there an Ebi Smolarek? For every Vincent Candela is there a Vladimir Weiss? For every Jack Wilshire is there a Gael Kakuta? Hidetoshi Nakata was a one year loanee as well. Danny Guthrie has been much better at Newcastle than he ever was while on loan at the Reebok. Neither was given much of an opportunity in the white shirt, to be fair.

My point is, we can certainly be enthusiastic, and some managers have a better eye for talent than others, but don't expect too much.

We were all ecstatic when Mikel Alonso, brother of Xabi, arrived at the Reebok. But he never really got a chance to play, we changed managers, and new boss Megson didn't believe that a player with technical ability had any place on a football pitch.

Swedish winger Christian Wilhelmsson was signed on loan as well. He was good enough to play in the Champions League for AS Roma, but not good enough to get on the pitch for Mr. Megson. The same Mr. Megson who thought Gregor Rasiak (another loan signing) was a better player.

Owen Coyle is not breaking new ground in looking for loan signings, Bolton have been in this business for years. You could argue that Coyle has been able to get more out of young loan players than most other managers. Maybe you would be right, but he has had hits and misses. I think if we got Rodrigo back he would have had a similar second half of the season to what Sturridge did last year. Ryo and the gang, I am not so sure. We shall see. Only a few more hours of madness to go.