Can he do anything right?
It's always nice when a Leicester City player scores twice in one game. We all love the feeling of one of our own doing the business up front, even when they're on loan elsewhere. Usually.
And usually is the key word here. Because right now, it seems one of our own could be about to screw us over royally.
And that's not his fault of course, but it's certainly frustrating. Can DJ Campbell do anything good for Leicester City?
His two goals today proved pivotal as Blackpool claimed a 4-2 victory at Scunthorpe in the day's early Championship kick-off, moving Ian Holloway's Seasiders to within just a single point of City.
For Leicester, DJ Campbell remains something of a problem child, an enigma at times if you will. Seemingly he can do it everywhere but here, which right now is a tad annoying.
Signed on a ludircrously lucrative contract back in the summer of 2007, Campbell has never hit it off with the Walkers faithful. A distinct lack of goals in a run of appearances plagued with inconsistencies, the former-Birmingham man has found life extremely difficult since the word go.
And due to said contract, budging him from the wage bill has proved an almost impossible task. Two loan moves to Blackpool and one to Derby have done little to improve the striker's fortunes in Nigel Pearson's eyes, but it now appears as though Campbell could be attracting the manager's attention in the wrong way.
The end of the season is nigh, and thus means that Campbell's insane wages will soon be off the books when his contract expires in the summer. But finding a new club won't be a problem, not when he's producing the kind of goal-scoring form that's sending his current suitors up the league table.
How ironic it would be for our own player to help force us out of the play-off race, a player who has simply been substandard in his time at the Walkers to date.
It was certainly not a mistake sending Campbell out on loan, but by allowing him to move out to a fellow promotion-hunting side Leicester could have made a grave error indeed.