Let’s be blunt: not every loan is a footballing judgement. In Cameron’s case the move wasn’t about whether he can play — it was about other factors behind the scenes. I think that’s harsh on him, to be fair, but it’s not unusual. There’s more at play than the ninety minutes on a Saturday.

First up, the simple truth about role fit. Curtis and Gassama are different players. You can like both, but they bring distinct things to the side. If Curtis can’t replicate the specific defensive balance, pressing or positional profile that Gassama offers, then the decision to favour the latter isn’t mysterious — it’s pragmatic. Managers have to pick the right tool for the job, and sometimes that means a player who is better suited to the system gets the nod even if others are talented.

Then there’s the fitness and data angle. When a loanee is owned or watched closely by another club, there’s an extra layer of caution. If the monitoring says a player isn’t ready, starting him risks more than one match — you’re risking the player’s welfare, the club’s finances and relationships with the parent club. Nobody wants to be the club that pushes a high-value loanee into trouble and then faces questions about why that happened. You can see why clubs err on the side of caution.

Finally, the system itself. Our depth and availability shape choices more than we like to admit. When options are thin, decisions look worse on paper. That doesn’t excuse poor processes, but it does explain them. We need better transparency around selection and fitness, and honest talk from those running things. Until then we’ll keep getting frustrated by moves that feel unfair, while also understanding the club has to protect assets and pick players who fit the gameplan.

It’s messy. It’s not always pretty. But the mix of role, data and squad availability is the most sensible way to read these calls — even when you sympathise with the player.

Written by EHL2020: 27 June 2026

Tags: transfers injury tactics opinion