Another good ROD performance....

[Guest Buxtonian]

Was a little surprised at the speed with which we too Nocholls on loan after Weever's injury. Injuries to GK's are rare compared with outfield players and we already had a relacement for O' Donnell in Aaron Jameson should the need arise. Jameson has had a couple of games with Wed. and at one period, whilst O'D was out on loan, was considered good enough to be on the bench as a replacement for Weever in the case of a match injury. This says to me that at that time the management had sufficient confidence in him,and I was under the wrong impression that he was considered Weever's Understudy. Instead we recalled O'D who has certainly not let down the side, and has worked consistently in this period on improving his all-round game. He has also, so it would appear, formed a useful working relationship with his defenders. He has proved that he is not averse to expressing his opinions to them, and they obviously listen and accept his comments.

Whilst I appreciate that it would be gentlemanly to honour any agreements made regarding loan players, I would be loath to leave out O'D at this stage, when his confidence is obviously growing, week by week.

Besides, replace O'D and where are we going to plant the spuds other than in the trenches along the goal area that he is busy working on? This is a valuable job O'D is doing with his goalkicks.

[Guest BirdonaMaguire]

Was a little surprised at the speed with which we too Nocholls on loan after Weever's injury. Injuries to GK's are rare compared with outfield players and we already had a relacement for O' Donnell in Aaron Jameson should the need arise. Jameson has had a couple of games with Wed. and at one period, whilst O'D was out on loan, was considered good enough to be on the bench as a replacement for Weever in the case of a match injury. This says to me that at that time the management had sufficient confidence in him,and I was under the wrong impression that he was considered Weever's Understudy. Instead we recalled O'D who has certainly not let down the side, and has worked consistently in this period on improving his all-round game. He has also, so it would appear, formed a useful working relationship with his defenders. He has proved that he is not averse to expressing his opinions to them, and they obviously listen and accept his comments.

Whilst I appreciate that it would be gentlemanly to honour any agreements made regarding loan players, I would be loath to leave out O'D at this stage, when his confidence is obviously growing, week by week.

Besides, replace O'D and where are we going to plant the spuds other than in the trenches along the goal area that he is busy working on? This is a valuable job O'D is doing with his goalkicks.

Jameson is injured as well.

[Guest Buxtonian]

Jameson is injured as well.

Sorry, hadn't heard. Is this recent?

Still would be loath to chance spoiling O'D's increasing confidence, when it is obvious that he's going to be understudy to Weever next year.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Buxtonian

[Guest BirdonaMaguire]

He got injured in February I believe, pelvic injury

[Dan™]

Nicholls was only ever brought in as a beech warmer I thought, we only had one fit professional goalkeeper at the club with Weaver and Jameson out injured so we needed a backup.

I totally understand if Megson has agreed to give him a couple of games on the proviso that the games are meaningless (we're safe from relegation now), so if that's what we had to agree to get him then I don't mind at all that O'D has to miss out for a bit. I'm sure he understands.

The thing that gets me (a little) is Megson being a bit two faced; it was only the other week that he was complaining that his team selection was forced on him due to contract stipulations... Now he's gone and agreed to one himself it seems.

[scram]

The thing that gets me (a little) is Megson being a bit two faced; it was only the other week that he was complaining that his team selection was forced on him due to contract stipulations... Now he's gone and agreed to one himself it seems.

TBF he'd have been stupid to not cover the keepers position and if it meant some gents agreement to allow it to happen then that's not a problem

There won't be many loans where there aren't some stipulations involved

[darra]

Nicholls was only ever brought in as a beech warmer I thought, we only had one fit professional goalkeeper at the club with Weaver and Jameson out injured so we needed a backup.

I totally understand if Megson has agreed to give him a couple of games on the proviso that the games are meaningless (we're safe from relegation now), so if that's what we had to agree to get him then I don't mind at all that O'D has to miss out for a bit. I'm sure he understands.

The thing that gets me (a little) is Megson being a bit two faced; it was only the other week that he was complaining that his team selection was forced on him due to contract stipulations... Now he's gone and agreed to one himself it seems.

Happens with loan deals all the time, bit pointless them sending him on loan if he's not going to get a least one game, we're lucky they didn't insist he played every game.

[edinburghowl]

If GM got the player on the pretext of an agreement then he has to honour it - we will need to use the loan market in the future and even though other clubs are ahead of us in the pecking order to send their players to - it will be further detrimental if we get a reputation for ignoring the terms of the loan - even if a gentlemans agreement

^^^ This.

[Dan™]

Happens with loan deals all the time, bit pointless them sending him on loan if he's not going to get a least one game, we're lucky they didn't insist he played every game.

Totally agree, but that wasn't my point. I was just a bit miffed that Megson suddenly seems to think it's ok when he's only recently been complaining about someone else doing it to Tommy Miller.

For the record, I don't see anything wrong with what Tommy has in his contract either, I'm sure it goes on all over the country, just as you say it does with loan deals. You'd imagine that the thinking at the time was that if Tommy was fit and able to play 30 games in his final season, and if he'd actually been picked to play in 30 games or more then surely we'd want to be keeping him on anyway. Clearly the plan at the time wasn't to be relegated from the Championship though, so this issue has only been brought to light due to budget changes in League One which his extension wouldn't really fit into.

[goh]

Megson said if we had a chance to play him we would

So we are 99% safe he might look to give Nicholls one game as a favour to Wigan.

I cant really see the problem with this. It seems to be a different situation to the miller issue

[Guest Bald Owl]

This kid is good but for a top keeper It's not just the occasional bad kick, he has several stinkers a game which will bite him in the arse sooner or later. However he'll know this and be working to rectify it. We are in good form for keepers after this season because Jameson looked better than Weaver and ROD, the save he made against Yeovil at home was world class.