Loan for development of young players suck?

[Davebarbaren]

Is it just me or do the players develop much much better if they stay with the team and play for the u23's rather than going on loan to a lower league side with **** coaches?

 

[Bigpapa42]

I don't think there are absolutes. Generally speaking, I prefer to keep the players in house. If they are young, I can control their training, mentoring, and PPM training. And as you say, the loaning club probably has lesser facilities and lesser coaches. But if its a player who is a bit more developed and they need first team matches but I can't give them that for some reason, then the value of the loan becomes a bit more notable.

 

[WJ]

Is it just me or do the players develop much much better if they stay with the team and play for the u23's rather than going on loan to a lower league side with **** coaches?

As always the answer is - IT DEPENDS.

Players develop great if they get first team football at the right level. Sending a player who is good enough for the Championship to the BSN is pointless. What will he learn? Really? He's much better than the league, so it's a walk in the park.

If you don't give a youngster games yourself, he'll develop only up to a point with your good facilities and coaches, say a star or star and a half. Beyond that, he needs games at a decent level.