Reece Oxford on loan to Bundesliga (BMG)



  • Then what is the point of him being there?
  • I've completely lost faith in loans. I think they're wasted time when you can't monitor a player's development in the way you would if they were with you. A team has little incentive to play the young player, in the same way that we are worried about the risk involved in bringing in a young player.

    I'd much rather us (and all clubs) found ways to give young players a chance than fish about for average ones who are a bit older and never really offer us much before slipping away after a season or two.
  • Borussia's current first choice centre backs are Matthias Ginter (15 caps for Germany) and Jannik Vestergaard (14 caps for Denmark)
  • Then what is he doing there?
  • Learning German?
  • ;lol oh ok, I knew there had to be a good reason behind it.
  • edited September 2017
    Apparently, ExWHU believes, we get a payment everytime he doesn't play for them as an incentive for them to play him. ;hmm
  • Outcast - whilst I share your frustration that Oxford is not getting the game time we hoped, I wouldn't be so quick to class all loans of youths to be worthless.

    In the very last game we played a relatively poor Bolton side. It was made substantially poorer because two of their better players this season (according to their supporters forum) were not playing - Messers Burke and Cullen who are on loan from us. Since moving across to them after pre-season (which meant that they missed Bolton's first two league games, due to Slav insiting we keep them until the end of OUR pre-season so he could see/use them) they have played and started every game for Bolton - excepting one game each where they came on as sub, and of course they weren't allowed to play against us.

    Those two are getting great experience playing regularly in the championship, and I feel both will be better players from having a season playing regularly in our country's second league rather than being in our U23 league. For me, loans can be a great way to get proper game experience for our youths, we just have to hope (and choose their destination well) they get solid game time.

    Regarding Oxford, it is disappointing as it is game time that is important, so if he cannot break through by Dec/Jan, I would look (if we can) to pull him back maybe send him somewhere in the championship at a team who need him and would give him a chance. A shame because Monchengladback gave Chelsea's youth Christensen lots of game time during his loan stay so I was very hopeful for a similar experience for our Reece.
  • Maybe he's just not good enough.

    Stam didn't seem to fancy him at Reading. Now he's not getting a game at 'Gladbach (despite the rumoured financial penalties).

    As sad as it would be, he may simply not be as good as we hoped he was.
  • Of course that is a possibility OCS, but obviouisly I hope that isn't the case.

    Unfortunately as Aslef already stated Monchengladback have some other very good options in defence so maybe they are just doing better and currently 'hold the shirt'. Time will tell.
  • Florin, I think Burke and Cullen are the exception, not the rule.

    I think the majority of loan deals are a waste of time. And I don't think a player not making it on loan or even being sold on/released and not doing well proves they weren't good enough because of the variables that change - coaching levels, new environment, how they deal with it mentally etc.

    I'm not sure I believe he's not good enough. He has played very well for our senior team and I think wanting to send him on loan shows they want him to develop. But that should be within our team. We so often fill gaps with weak players brought in in January or by playing people out of position.

    Reading were fighting for promotion. Gladbachbh are quite a strong team with experienced defenders, pushing for European spots. They're not going to be as bothered about a payment to us as they are in securing their position.

    Developing young players requires risks. Loans are us transferring that risk to someone else, with little guarantee they'll take it either - unless they're as awful as Bolton.

    I think our goal with the academy should be Tomkings/Noble level players - dependable, prem-level, if not spectacular. It would mean not having to spend so much plugging holes.

  • edited September 2017
    Florin, OCL ;ok I'm just looking at the fact that his last three managers (Bilic, Stam and Hecking (yes, I had to Google it)) haven't considered him good enough (or maybe ready enough) for first team football.

    I get there's natural competition at any club, but he hasn't been able to dislodge any first team centre back wherever he's been in the last couple of seasons.
  • Oxford is still very young. Kane didn't break into the Spurs side until he was a couple of years older than Oxford is now (I think).
  • Christiansen didn't break into the BMG team immediately
  • edited September 2017
    He is, but Kane played 56 times when he was out on loan and had played 40 games before he'd turned 20.

    The difference, and in fact the point, is that Oxford isn't playing.
  • Outcast, again parts of your message I agree with other parts less so.

    I fully agree that I want academy players to break through for our sides. I also agree in the past we have filled gaps in our squad with poor quality foreign players as opposed to just giving the youth the chance. This needs to change as we move forward IMO.

    However, you say we want solid prem level players. Of our most recent to achieve this, most had important loan periods away which were crucial to their development. Noble had a spell at Hull that was going well until an injury, then later had an excellent 3 months at Ipswich, that led to him getting a chance with our first team. Tomkins had a five week spell at Derby, in which he played 7 times, was deemed so good he was called back early to fill in when we had an injury and was in our first squad ever since. Carrick admittedly didn't get much time at his Birmingham loan, but in a short 2 month one to Swindon he played 6 times (scored 2) and got great reviews, again leading him to get a chance with our first team. Lastly Defoe had a phenomenal loan move to Bournemouth, scoring 18 in 29 appearances and was then defined as the 'next big thing'.

    Basically what I am saying is that while it is a risk sending them to another club rather than monitoring them 'in house', there is no substitute for proper first team action - reserve team matches just don't cut it to see how they will handle things. To get them to the point of being ready to join our first team in a very competitive Premier League they need to show they can do it where it counts in a professional match and the best way (as proven in all the examples of those who have 'made it' above) is to go on loan to a smaller club, if only for a while, to play in front of good crowds and in proper competitive matches.

    And Jorderz - Oxford currently 18 years old. Kane broke through into Spurs side at 21, only becoming a definitive regular at 22. ;ok
  • I think it can be more difficult for a manager to play a young defender in a team, than it is for a young attacking midfielder/striker.

    As a defender, one mistake and all the blame is on you. One mistake as an attacker and you can try again.

  • Florin ;ok I'm not against loans, I've just lost faith in them.

    I think they have to extremely carefully picked and if not the right fit, the player should stay. The Bolton deal was good, most others haven't been. If a deal appears to be good but is underwhelming, we need a way to bring them back.

    Regarding Tomkins and Noble, I think there's been a change in the nature of football. More money, even in the Chanpionship, means that there's both more to lose and more means to buy in average, experienced players who appear lower-risk than a young loanee from a higher-level club. I think that reduces the space for young players to play while on loan. I don't disagree with principle of loaning for game time, I just can't see it actually happening.
  • As a comparison, how old was Rio when he became a regular in the 1st. team?
  • It looks like he was about 20.

    Became a regular'ish in the 96/97 season (born in 1978).

    But he was a bit spesh ;carew
  • I think the club have been very smart here as they have worked out that when champions league football arrives in around two seasons time we will need players used to the continental style of play, hence the Gladbach move. Either that or we didn't realise they had two international centre backs and wanted him for squad and he is now warming a bench in Germany instead of here.

    I think loans are great but of course must be placed carefully. Young Reece needs a ball playing lower championship or upper league one side if that were available. The big issue here is placement as Gladbach are currently 7th in the Bundaslegue which surely must mean there would be little between them and us in quality, so if he is not ready for first team for us why them?
  • edited September 2017
    Oxford joined BM on 21 June, Ginter signed from Borussia Dortmund on 4 July.

    Last season they loaned Chelsea's Andreas Christensen to play alongside Vestergaard at CB, 43 appearances with 41 starts
  • He'll get games there, I'm sure of it
  • His loan has been terminated and he's on his way back.
  • That went well didn't it! ;lol 0 minutes played.
  • 100 days, just long enough to learn "auf mich kopf, sohn" and "wollpullover für torpfosten".
  • Seems weird. Everyone raves about him but when it comes to picking him to play they don't. What is the issue? ;hmm
  • alderz said:

    He'll get games there, I'm sure of it


    What's your lottery numbers pick for tonight? Because I don't want them!
  • Valid question Dean.

    That game against Arsenal had me thinking we had a worldie on our hands.

    Is the boys head on straight... ;hmm
Sign In or Register to comment.