Barkley may go back out on loan

Other players make plenty of mistakes but DM like the cut of their jib, so that's alright then.

Also, DM (in his usual grim, risk-averse way) neglects the possibility that winning games might rest on actually creating something, rather than just avoiding costly blunders.

I'd rather we took a chance on young Ross rather than persist with an honest but uninspired plodder like Naismith.

That being said, he's still really young. The crap I was doing at 18 and 19 makes me blush to this day. We also don't have knowledge of these "mistakes" he's making on the pitch. Didn't he give away that stupid penalty near the beginning of last year? He hasn't played much since that game.

Regardless, the kid needs experience. If it's not with us, loan him out again. We've been skin and bones the past month and he's hardly gotten a look so what good is it doing us or the team to keep him around.

The problem is that Barkley's natural position is the centre...he won't displace Fellaini, and is not defensively minded enough to play in the two deeper positions, occupied by Osman and Pip/Gibson/Hitz. Can you imagine how a central mid of Osman and Barkley would function, given that our front four generally have license to attack these days, as do our fullbacks. It would be tactically naive to play him, and could damage his development long term. Arsenal sent Wilshere out on loan when he was further along than Barkley, and Barkley should go back out on loan, baring significant injuries, by the end of the month. How many other teams have a 19 year old central midfielder playing for them, especially one who missed a chunk of his development? Give him the rest of the season in the Championship, and then see where he is.

And I don't buy sticking him wide. That's what we did with Osman too long, and led to him becoming the unfair victim of criticism...he needs to play where he belongs, and grow as a central midfield player.

Coleman came on in leaps and bounds at a team playing well and chasing promotion in the Championship. Holloway is now at Palace, who are in a similar position to the one Blackpool were in. I reckon he could be trusted to manage him for the rest of the season.

Jim - I don't agree that he has to play CM at the moment. It's common for youngsters to get in the first XI playing in an unfamiliar position, and I think in the long run it gives them a better sense of the team as a whole. Most (if not all) of our team can play in more than one position, and I think that's something Ross needs to learn.

Kev, my translation is "I fancy the hell out of this kid, but he's not ready to help us make the Champions League, and I'd rather have him play and develop then sit on our bench."

For what it's worth, I agree with him. I've not seen anything from the lad since his debut 18 months ago to suggest that he should be in the team. It's clear he's got talent and I'm sure he'll go on to be a belter but I just don't undersand why people are so desperate for a young lad to be thrown in when we're doing just fine without him.

Of course all players make mistakes but it's where and when you make them that is the worry, aswell as how you react to them. I think that Moyes is concerned that Barkley makes his mistakes in bad areas, and isn't always the first to try to rectify them. From what I've seen he also makes the same mistake a lot (knocks the ball past a player who is clearly bigger, stronger and faster than him and then tries to run round the other side to get it but is easily brushed aside).

Look at Baines and Jaggs, they went out and got regular football at a lower level, gaining confidence fitness and experience and are now 2 of the best players in the country.

Ross showed against Chelsea why Moyes has been so cautious, the amount of times he gave the ball away in dangerous positions could have really cost the team. Yes other have made mistakes but perhaps Ross does not have the maturity to deal with it like the more senior players.

I don't want to rush the lad but there have been plenty of opportunities to bring him on this season. He can play on the right. Nobody is asking him to be a winger and beat opponents with pace. Just keep it simple, work hard and get the odd cross it. It's not as if he's ousting a key player in Naismith.

He came on against Chelsea and looked like he was going to give the ball away all the time. Suddenly you appreciate how good Osman is in possession, barely a misplaced pass all game, but of course he slipped over at one point and lost it therefore he must be terrible – give it a rest. Barkley was out on loan, we had an injury crisis so brought him back just in case, as it turned out Osman stayed fit so we didn't need him, therefore he can go back on loan soon, what is wrong with this?

What I find confusing is that we have always been given the impression by the manager that he isn't ready, even when our own eyes have seen him clearly as being our most talented player on the pitch on several occasions, only to find him dropped for the next games. Drop Fellaini back to defensive midfield and rotate the position behind the striker between Naismith and Barkley.

I think he needs first team experience and if he gets it and starts to show his promise (which I think he will) and Moyes shows a little faith then imagine the buzz around the place. It would help in that push for fourth.

To my mind there have been games when Fellaini in the advanced role hasn't swept all before him, when Ossie has been struggling for the last 20 minutes, when we haven't had any outlet on the right, when we have been in charge but with little to show for it, when DM could have said to young Barkley "Here you are lad, give me 20 minutes of good creative effort and lets see what it brings us", and I am not talking about chasing the game against the likes of Chelsea.

What makes me want to cry is how people queue up to list his faults / mistakes as though our senior players are perfect and never give the ball away or make stupid mistakes.

He needs game time with the likes of Fellaini, Pienaar, Jelavic, Osman, Gibson and Baines all on the pitch around him to back him up and direct his play. If that means, in the latter stages of games, giving Ossie 20 minutes rest in a lot of games (which will ensure he is still strong later in the season), or dropping Fellaini back (especially against the more physical sides like Stoke where he can't dominate their defenders as easily), or playing Barkley out of position on the right (it won't ruin him to do this), then so be it.

I'm not arguing that this could have been costly because clearly the resultant break nearly sealed it, but he was hardly juggling on our own 18-yard line. To his credit, he tried to make something genuinely happen rather than play a lazy percentage ball. At that stage of the game, he tried something different which is often what's needed. It didn't work out but the more we emphasise the error, ignoring any of the good things he did, the less confident he's likely to feel about what he is good at — expressing himself with the ball.

Balance please?

I think you are plain wrong anyway. Apart from his two notable errors he looked calm and comfortable on the ball to me. If you think Ossie doesn't misplace passes and lose possession unnecessarily then you are watching different games to me.

I am talking about 20 minutes at the end of games. It makes sense for it to be for Ossie because of their respective positions (but it doesn't have to be) and because I think we will get more out of Ossie for the whole of the season if he gets some rest.

Its very difficult for Moyes. If he's expecting mid table mediocrity then you can try out the kids more, but at the sharp end trying for Europe each season, you have little scope for blooding for the kid's sake. Goal difference could be the way into top 4 this season and why would he take the risk in any one game?

Barkley needs to prove his worth to the team without being in the team, be it on loan or in the U23 league or whatever it is.

If he can't then maybe he's not good enough anyway.

I think Sam's wrong, the lad is potentially special. But if you really believe he's going to develop faster with an occasional 20 minutes on Everton's wing than with 90 minutes every game running central midfield in the Championship... I think you're completely out of your mind.

Have you considered that we might be worse? Have you ever considered that David Moyes and his coaching staff may not leave out a player who was showing enough in training and reserve games to suggest he could make the team even better? Or that the England under 21 coaches may know enough to decide whether he was playing well enough on loan in the championship to earn a call up to their squad? Or that spectators like myself may look at him in these 20 minute cameos and feel that he isn't showing anything to suggest he's better than what's being picked ahead of him?

As I said in my original post, I'm just going on what I've seen so far. For all the talk of him being 'creative' from people on here I'm yet to see him produce it. Not a single through ball, dribble in a dangerous (to the opposition) area or quality shot sticks in my mind other than on his debut. I know a wednesday fan who felt the same about his loan there, that he had a lot of talent but didn't actually produce an awful lot.

Once again, this is not a criticism of him as a long term prospect, just an observation on his current ability based on what I've seen of him at senior level.

I know we have a few other options for that position but Ross Barkley could be the prime one (Jack Rodwell was never that sort of midfielder; he was a potential CB don't forget), but he needs more experience with the first team. This is not simply for his sake, but potentially for the benefit of the team in the long run.

We have drawn, or won by a single goal, loads of games. There is no way to prove that we would have done better or worse if Ross Barkley had been getting some game time at the end of games. Our midfield was already spent against Chelsea and we still created some decent chances after the substitutions. Apart from their breakaway opportunity from him losing the ball, there was nothing to show we were weaker with Ross Barkley on the pitch.

He has already shown that he can stand out in the Championship even with limited team-mates (which is harder than when you are surrounded by superstars). What else can he do to prove himself, if he isn't given some more opportunities by our manager?

We should expect him to look like the kid he is against top-class players, but that is the environment he will learn the most in. Not every game will be appropriate (and I wouldn't start him) but the manager has passed up a few opportunities to give him experience.

He is making the bench and was put on against Chelsea, and you think he is not showing something sufficient in training?

Fair play to DM, he is talking about edging him into the first team (unlike some on here who are virtually saying already that he won't make it) but I think he could be a little less cautious with the lad at times. He also seems to get much more severe 'punishment' for his mistakes than anyone else who makes them.

I'd look at what Ferguson is doing with Macheada... or whatever... he's been on the fringes for seasons, and is still being retained on the bench so obviously Ferguson fancies him. With Utd they do though get three goal advantages, total domination, weak European teams, where you can give these types more playing time.

We don't!

I do think think he would learn from some regular appearances in the latter stages of games, and there have been a few which would have been better opportunities for him than trying to get the better of Chelsea.

Look at some of the other posts and see what people think of his loan spell at SW. I honestly don't think the lad can win with some people. He played regularly and most people say he was a stand-out player but a lot on here are of the 'big deal' opinion.

You say we should expect him to look like a kid against good teams and that's exactly the point - we can't afford to. We can't have passengers in the side, regardless of age, and that's why Moyes is talking about him learning and developing elsewhere and coming back better. Many players, from Beckham to Defoe, Carrick to Wilshere have followed the same path without it appearing too harmful to their career so I don't see why Ross would be different?

And you can't have it both ways, I'm saying maybe he doesn't show enough in training on a regular basis not for individual games. Nick hit the nail on the head earlier, if you're not in the side you have to show the boss he's wrong - whether in training, on loan or when coming on.

We are not Utd, we don't have 3 or 4 players for each position, so we need to maximise what we have and maybe take a few risks now and again. People still haven't explained why 2-1 down against Chelsea is the right time to use him, but he will be useless against the likes of West Brom, West Ham, Fulham, Villa, Swansea, Wigan, Stoke, etc.

Are people suggesting the manager threw the Chelsea game?

As I have pointed out, there have been games where Ossie has flagged or our preferred formation wasn't getting the job done, and those are the games where he might do something for you that no-one else will.

I have tried to be clear that I am not too far removed from the manager's position on this (though I think he could be bolder at times) but I am challenging some of the posts and the supposed reasoning behind them.

He certainly needs some game time to find out. It's promising he had a good loan spell – some of the above didn't. If we have the luxury of a lead, I'd like to see him given some decent sub time but if that is not going to be on the agenda, a loan spell (ideally with an quick release clause) at a good Championship side would make sense.

I think it simply boils down to a lack of other options on the bench for what was needed at 2-1 down that day.

Barkley looked nervy when he came on against Chelsea. And I mean in his body language as much as his touch, which by the way is perfectly understandable for a 19 year old lad who has been hyped so much. I think he will make a good player but has a way to go yet. It sounds to me like Moyes thinks this too.

My view is that Moyes probably thought that at 2-1 down and Chelsea shutting up shop "Go on Ross, see if you can make a name for yourself here"

But then that doesn't fit with the Dour Davey / negative / coaches attacking instinct out of players / he's a typical Presbyterian lines that will inevitably get rolled out to somehow show that Moyes is holding Barkley back.

It also isn't the only run out he's had as he came on against Stoke too, he didn't do anything there either but that probably wasn't a good game to bring him on because they're too good/big/strong/experienced or whatever the most convenient excuse is.

5 or 10 minute cameos months apart are not fair on him. He probably feels the need to impress and do things maybe he wouldn't do if he were playing week-in week out.

I also think that while I understand Moyes reluctance to risk our run of games, I can also see the double standard at work where the likes of Howard, Neville or our centre backs make mistakes which (have consistently) cost us possession and goals yet they seem to be Teflon coated.

One thing I do agree with is that if he's not going to get game time at EFC, get him loaned out ASAP. The only thing he'll develop at Everton at the moment is a sore arse.

Good result though, and nice to see Fellaini and Jelavic on the score sheet. Be even nicer to see it on Saturday.

Anyway, good result tonight which was potentially a banana skin for us. Glad none of our players picked up any injuries. Hope Baines's ice pack is precautionary / non-serious.

Given his youth he simply may not be mature enough physically or mentally.

If 4-1 up with 32 minutes to go against a League Two outfit isn't the "right opportunity", then I don't know what is. Naismith, on the other hand, looked worse in this game than he has in any Premier League game I've seen him play.

Begs the question who do we loan him to to guarantee that he comes back at the level we want. He needs to be playing regularly, so presumably one of the top Championship sides is out of the question because they won't risk their pretensions on a young lad who could be taken from them at any time.

So it's a lower tier Championship club (like Sheff Wed) and he needs to be scoring hat-tricks every game, 40 yard dribbles before he is allowed to pass to someone, and blocking all the opponents attempts on goal to boot.

Or we could try giving him some more opportunities from the bench.... no, that's fucking ridiculous!

He is still young, enjoys being on the ball and has a powerful shot. The multiple leg fracture may have left it's mark but I hope not. Only time will tell.

It's not just him: Pienaar is a bad culprit for that too, but he is a regular and is going to be allowed mistakes. Subs have to prove that they should replace the starters; so far he hasn't... I hope he does though.

As already asked, who should he replace? Fellaini or Osman? Both have been playing well this season and as Moyes should have learned from Osman, don't force the player into an incorrect position just to get him into the team.

Si, where did you get the idea that he ran the show at Sheffield?

As I have posted before, he is used to controlling things at his age group, and that is what he will do at a lower standard. Then you put him in our first team and suddenly he is not the core player and is expected / needs to play to others strengths. It is that adjustment he is struggling with but it will only come through playing with those players in competitive games.

How else is he supposed to get used to that if he isn't given some game time? Chelsea and Stoke are hardly the easiest teams for any midfielder to do well against, and yet people are writing him off because he didn't do anything outstanding.

"Hopefully we can keep him. I think they want us to have him because the kid hasn't done anything wrong," Jones said. "He's very instrumental in what we are trying to do, his passing and his movement was there."

"Ross has got better and better since he came here. The lad has a very bright future and playing games in the Championship will certainly help his development."

I believe the lad also won a Player of the Month award whilst he was there.

Not many on here from what I can see, most people are just saying they believe he needs to go out on loan to develop, which also appears to be what his manager thinks. It also answers your question - he gets used to that by taking a gradual step up rather than a huge leap which may make him lose confidence and go backwards.

'Poor' is a subjective term, you may not have thought he was poor against Chelsea but I - and evidently others - did. Not poor for a 19 year old making a rare appearance but poor in relation to the remainder of the team which is how he has to be judged if he's playing in the first team. Put simply, if Naismith came on and played like that he'd be slated.

I only saw him twice at Wednesday and he did ok in both games without ever really impressing. According to my Wednesday supporting mate this was a pretty accurate reflection of his time there. To me, that's fine, he's there to learn and get used to the pace and strength of senior players not win awards.. It's the people who are expecting him to be the new Rooney that may cause problems because no matter how much he improves he's unlikely to be anywhere near that sort of level. A top quality premier league player who is good enough to go on and get a few England caps would be a briliant achievement, I get the impression though that some people are expecting him to be a mixture of Messi and Iniesta.

What irks me is the negative comments (poor, immature, over-hyped) which go way beyond a rational assessment of his performances (for us and Sheffield Wednesday), and the unwavering belief that a loan spell will improve him and that we cannot make reasonable use of him from the bench.

He played well at Sheff Wed (look at manager's comments and the fact that he won a fans Player of the Month award by a landslide) but it still hasn't ironed out
his inconsistencies and there is no proof that it will. People have thrown up names like Carrick, Beckham, Wilshere, Defoe and Osman as 'evidence' that loans work. If you look closely at those examples you will see that Carrick and Beckham had very limited spells on loan (8 and 5 appearances respectively), Defoe played for a League 2 side and was prolific at 18 (suggesting he was already above that level already), Wilshere went on loan to Premier League Bolton (a genuine challenge), and Osman has been a player who divided opinion years after his own loan spell. Should add that a quick, goal poaching striker is not a reasonable comparison for a creative midfielder.

I think defenders benefit from long loan spells because they generally mature later than other players, and a young, quality striker will get a huge boost from scoring freely against lower quality defences, but I remain dubious that a loan spell to a Championship side will teach a creative midfielder all he needs to know to slot into a Premier League side.

I don't know the exact reasons for the Beckham, Carrick and Wilshere loans (whether they were about attitude or aptitude) but it is patently obvious that at that time their parent clubs had good numbers of established players, whereas we are limited in our choices and some who are playing have had multiple chances whilst never really looking as of the required quality.

In my experience a young player (or any other) will not lose confidence as much by making mistakes as by the way they are treated when they make them. It is a balancing act, because they have to get the message that they need to improve, but a summary demotion will weigh heavily on anyone. It is a measure of their character how they then respond.

To my mind Barkley has shown he is not a sulker and is keen to learn / improve, and my point of view is that a loan period at the likes of Sheffield Wednesday will not get him to the level a lot of people seem to be sure it will.

I used some of those examples you mention just to highlight that being loaned out isn't necessarily a bad thing but they are just random players I remember being loaned out off the top of my head. If you want further examples then how about Tom Cleverley, Jordan Henderson, Jake Livermore and Tom Huddlestone - all recent England international central midfielders? Or maybe Emmanuel Frimpong or Josh McEachran, both highly rated midfield contemporaries of Ross who are/have been on loan?

The point I have been making is a simple one. I don't believe he looks ready for first team football at Everton yet. The team should be picked on merit, I've seen nothing in his appearances for us or Wednesday that makes me think he should be playing and so I feel he may benefit from going out on loan. You disagree, i'm not saying you're wrong, it's just a different opinion.

There are two ways the manager can go with Ross Barkley, and he has said as much. I am currently an advocate of giving him a go and seeing how he goes; with a larger / better quality squad I would be happy for him to go out on loan (though I would look for a better team than Sheff Weds currently are).

Other loanee given as an example was Coleman, who impressed at right-back (I think) for Blackpool during the run-in of their promotion season (9 appearances). Came back to us, played mainly as right-winger and many ToffeeWebbers are disparaging of his ability to ever be a decent right-back.

Of the others you now list, where is the evidence that their loan spells were key to their development. The one thing they have in common is that they belong to rich clubs with large squads who can 'lose' a few youngsters for an extended period of time and concentrate on the well equipped squads they still have left.

I agree it may not be the answer, just as starting him every week for us might not, or bringing him on every week, or every other week, or leaving him in the under 21s. Any one of them might help him, none of them might help him, we don't know. The one thing I can say with some confidence though, is that he is not currently good enough to be ahead of Osman, Fellaini, Gibson, Mirallas, Hitzlsperger, Anichebe or Pienaar in the Everton team (I'll reserve judgement on Naismith). For that reason I believe a loan is the best scenario because it will get him game time, if he turns out to be another Baxter then maybe I'll have been wrong, or maybe it wouldn't have made any difference.

With regards to the others, again I'm not saying that there's 'evidence' the loan spells were 'key' to their development, I'm saying that it clearly didn't do them an awful lot of harm because they're a lot further along than Barkley is. I'm not sure I would class Sunderland as 'rich' or with a 'large squad' but if you think they are then Jonjo Shelvey is another , and I don't see that Liverpool's squad last year was much better than ours this year? Similarly others, like Joe Allen, Fabien Delph or Aaron Ramsey started off in lower divisions with their original teams and they appear to have turned out ok, so I'm not sure why not playing in the premier league at 19 would be such a hindrance to his career.

Personally I don't think the quality of the team he's with is of great importance, more the level of players he's up against. The idea is to get him game time against people who won't allow him to cruise around like he can for the junior teams, that will happen whether it's Wednesday or Cardiff that he plays for. If he's playing passes that his team mates don't see or making runs that don't get found then that's ok, as long as he has the coaching staff telling him it's the right thing to do and not to stop just because his team mates aren't as good as him.

What I have said is that I have seen no evidence at all that this loan spell will improve him more than getting some game time for us from the bench.

Out of your list of players who are ahead of him, two are currently not available (and both may spend more time out this season), one has yet to secure an extension to his deal and two are more likely to play alongside Barkley rather than instead of him.

The players who came up with their teams did exactly that - they learnt how to play effectively with the people it was most important they gelled with, and obviously others have been plucked from lower leagues, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have progressed just as well (or even better) with bigger clubs surrounded by better players.

My concern about him playing with lesser players is that he will simply learn to do things himself rather than trusting others. That is the exact opposite of what we need him to do when he plays for us, so his loan will only teach him 'bad' habits.

You were suggesting that Barkley would be better served playing here and said something along the lines of not believing that central midfielders could learn much from playing in the championship (again i'm not quoting I just don't care enough to look up the actual post) therefore I mentioned some players who have done the same before going on to play for England. The 'point' being that it MAY have benefitted them and certainly the managers at all those different clubs evidently thought it was potentially beneficial otherwise why do it?

Also you're just plain wrong on one point. The fact is those players I mentioned are NOT more likely to play with Barkley rather than instead of him as has been shown by the fact that they are getting picked ahead of him whoever is available. You may do that if you were the manager but Moyes seems quite happy to juggle the players around to play a combination of the players I mentioned rather than Barkley.

This is the point that I've been making all along, Moyes is not playing Barkley because at this moment in time he doesn't think he's good enough, it's clear. That's why Naismith and Hitzlsperger, Gueye and Oviedo are coming on ahead of him, even against League 2 sides, it's why Phil Neville partnered Gibson against West Ham and Hitzlsperger partnered him against Wigan and then when 2 of these 3 weren't available he changed the formation against Chelsea, it's why as soon as Fellaini was fit again against Newcastle Barkley didn't even make the squad. This is how we got onto debating this in the first place but you don't seem to have grasped it.

One point I did mess up was that I did not envision that Ross Barkley would be playing instead of Fellaini or Pienaar, it being far more likely that he would play alongside those players if he were ever called upon. It is still pointless to include them in a list of players he has to be considered more useful than, as he doesn't have to be at the top of that list unless we are playing a one man midfield.

It is you who keeps presenting anecdotal evidence as if it is proof of anything. You have not even tried to respond to the points I have outlined about particular examples you have given, merely throwing more inconclusive examples around as if that makes them them more valid.

The debate is not about whether the manager thinks the lad is good enough (we all know that at the moment he doesn't) it is about whether his approach to improving him is necessarily the best way to go. What I can't fathom is why you and your ilk are so CONVINCED it is, when there is no actual evidence to back this up.

The only evidence we can really consider in this case is the progress Ross Barkley has or has not made in his loan spell. It seems to me that the lad hasn't really improved at all (judging by the managers reluctance to use him on his recall) despite some glowing reports from Dave Jones, so it seems right to question what good another dose of the same medicine will do him.

You continue to say that I, for one, am 'convinced' and 'unwavering' in my belief that a loan will be 'the panacea' for Barkley when I really don't see how I could have been any clearer that that that isn't the case! I have said numerous times that I have no idea whether it will benefit him, but personally I'm of the opinion that it is more likely to benefit him than playing for our reserves (note that once again I am saying it is an opinion, rather than a fact). These appear to be the two options because – as stated above – Moyes is not going to give him a lot of game time at the moment.

I have also stated that I have no idea whether he will ever be the player we all hope he will be, unfortunately that's life, it doesn't matter whether he goes out on loan, plays for Everton or is wrapped in cotton wool, if he reaches a plateau then he reaches a plateau and there's bugger all we can do about it.

So you see, Si, I am responding to your points, I'm stating categorically and clearly that I HAVE NO PROOF that a loan will benefit him, I do not claim to have anything other than an opinion and I have attempted to use some examples to show why I have that opinion, not to try to provide some irrefutable evidence.

Also I'm not sure why you keep insisting that you're not against a loan deal and then say things like;

"I remain dubious that a loan spell to a Championship side will teach a creative midfielder all he needs to know to slot into a Premier League side."

and

"My concern about him playing with lesser players is that he will simply learn to do things himself rather than trusting others. That is the exact opposite of what we need him to do when he plays for us, so his loan will only teach him 'bad' habits."

That is why I used the examples I used, which you called 'pointless', to show that all of those England international central midfielders didn't appear to suffer from these 'bad habits'. And before you say it, I'm fully aware that there's nothing to prove that Jordan Henderson wouldn't be as good as Xavi if only his spell out on loan hadn't ruined his career.

Unfortunately your use of anecdotal evidence has opened a chasm between us because you feel it counts for / means something whereas to me it is simply anecdotal. It is selective because it ignores those whose loan spells patently did nothing of significance for them, and the many successful players who were never loaned out at all.

As I said initially, I was saddened by the deeply negative comments some people had posted (going so far as to deny any merit the lad had gained during his time at Sheffield Wednesday) and couldn't understand why some were SO convinced that sending him back out on loan was THE answer. You may have your doubts (and that is what 'dubious' means so we come together there) but there are others who display and profess to have none and they are the ones I was really trying to provoke into giving their reasons. There are many good posters on Toffeeweb but there are also some who seem to have little grasp of the subtleties / complexities of the game and the people who play it at the top level.

Here's an analogy to help you understand where my attitude to this particular subject comes from:

Imagine you have some unspecified complaint and you go to a GP. He checks you out, decides on a diagnosis and writes out a prescription. You take your medicine as directed and, despite some promising (but inconclusive) signs, your complaint remains much as it was, so you go back to the doctor. He checks you out once again and agrees that you have not recovered.

Now this is where you and I apparently diverge. I wouldn't mind if the doctor stuck with his original diagnosis... but, if he wrote out EXACTLY the same prescription, I would be fairly sceptical about whether it was going to have the required effect.

That scepticism would remain even if I mentioned it to the chemist and he told me that he knew of many people who had been cured by taking that medicine (that is you and your list of 'successes' by the way). I would say, "But what if that medicine just doesn't work for me? What if those people would have recovered anyway, or if there was something else they took at the same time that made the medicine effective, or if their underlying complaint wasn't the same as mine?"

If the doctor had changed the prescription, maybe even just using a higher strength of the same drug or a different type of drug, then I would feel much more confident that the second course of treatment would work when the first had failed. In certain cases a doctor may even decide to try a radical therapy to cure a problem that is resistant to standard treatments...

Remember, DM hasn't even said that he thinks the lad has made significant progress since he went on loan, and his continued reluctance to use him from the bench certainly doesn't suggest that he does. There are some posters on here who have pooh-poohed what Barkley did at Sheff Wed (which I think is harsh) but we have not seen enough of him since he returned to make a judgement for ourselves as to whether he has learnt anything (though some think they have seen enough to decide he hasn't). That suggests the previous loan spell achieved nothing.

Apparently Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. To me, sending Ross Barkley to Sheff Wed is simply doing the same thing again.

If we end up strengthening our midfield in the next three weeks, then sending Barkley on loan will make more sense but I, for one, would want it to be with better players than Sheffield Wednesday have. I would see if one of the clubs on the fringe of the promotion places would take him and use him, or if one of the Premier clubs at the bottom of the table would be happy to have him.

If no-one of that level wants him, then the manager's hands are tied... but I remain sceptical that the lad will learn more at a club where he is a big fish in a small pond, than what he can immersed with the first team players at EFC.