This logic makes no sense. Do you think we should drop on loan Walsh for permanent Allen ?
Ha ha. No. That’s not the same thing and you know it. Walsh is here for the season, has cemented his place in the team by being better than anyone else in his position, and is literally one of the players that has to be played if available. McCallum has a more than adequate back up in Mason, some even feel he’s the better player. Who would replace Walsh (that we also ‘own’ and is of a similar ability)?
The whole point I’m making is that when you look at the bigger picture, the club will still exist next season (hopefully!) and any manager worth his salt will be looking at that as well as the next few months. As I’ve repeatedly said there really isn’t that much between them, and we will need Mason when / if McCallum goes.
I assume the ‘logic’ that others are using is that McCallum is streets ahead of Mason and playing Mason will severely weaken our team. I don’t agree with that, and feel that giving our own player more game time is more important than the slight advantage we might gain by playing a (loaned back) player.
Was it worth losing Grimmer for whatever intangible benefits we gained from playing Sterling in every single game last season? I’m not convinced that Sterling offered that much more than Grimmer would have (ok, he’s a better player, but for last season grimmer would have done a job), and I can see the same scenario playing out again here.
I’m just thinking ahead slightly and feel that Mason is a perfectly adequate solution to the left defence / wing back position.
But hey, it’s all about opinions and the only one that really matters is Mark Robins’s. I’ll let him make the call of who should play. All things being equal it would be McCallum, but in the circumstances we are talking about it would be Mason. For me.
