Using a Small Squad

[westonred]

Is playing with a small squad having an effect on our Academy players future ? If we had sufficient cover these youngsters would have gone out and played 90 mins every week at lower league clubs gaining much needed experience. Currently they are lucky to get 5 or 10 mins from our bench. Years gone by Vyner went out to Accrington Plymouth Rotherham and Aberdeen Semenyo went out to Bath and Newport , Bobby Reid went to Cheltenham, Oldham and Plymouth Joe Bryan went out to Bath and Plymouth and more recently Cam Pring went out to 8 clubs on loan before ready for our 1st team. We had 6 academy players on the bench last night who in my opinion are not quite ready for championship football and should be out on loan learning their trade So is SL demanding a smaller squad for NP to use actually helping the club and the young guns

[Shuffle]

The fact academy players are training with the first team & developing in house is a positive.  My only issue is that the promotion of academy boys over others seem bizarre.

 

This is nothing against anyone in the squad yesterday as frankly I’ve not seen enough of them to comment in depth but how does James leapfrog Leeson as an example to become RB cover. Leeson played pre season & scored a couple & is U21,RB.  
 

Equally how does Nelson become picked as a wide player over Francois or Pearson ? Neither James or Nelson are established in U21 team but clearly being fast tracked. I understand that clearly the club recognise the potential but you would expect their development to include 21s experience before sitting on a championship bench. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

A lot of them aren't ready..They are filling the bench and even being accelerated onto the pitch, as our squad is too thin and we are injury hit.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Open End Numb Legs]

Training and getting match minutes at this level and on these pitches with these crowds will accelerate their development IMO.

We should have a great young team further down the line, but, we need Nige to guide the way with proper support. Jam tomorrow!!

[Sir Geoff]

34 minutes ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

Training and getting match minutes at this level and on these pitches with these crowds will accelerate their development IMO.

We should have a great NEST EGG further down the line, but, we need Nige to guide the way with proper support. Jam tomorrow!!

Changed that for you.

[GrahamC]

4 hours ago, Shuffle said:

The fact academy players are training with the first team & developing in house is a positive.  My only issue is that the promotion of academy boys over others seem bizarre.

 

This is nothing against anyone in the squad yesterday as frankly I’ve not seen enough of them to comment in depth but how does James leapfrog Leeson as an example to become RB cover. Leeson played pre season & scored a couple & is U21,RB.  
 

Equally how does Nelson become picked as a wide player over Francois or Pearson ? Neither James or Nelson are established in U21 team but clearly being fast tracked. I understand that clearly the club recognise the potential but you would expect their development to include 21s experience before sitting on a championship bench. 

 

You see far more of this level than I do & as always, I respect your view.

However I think bluntly there are now a significant group in the 21s who aren’t ever going to feature in the first team squad, unless like happened with Idehen this week there simply is no one else.

Re Idehen I still believe that he’s got no long term future with us, will only get on the pitch in an absolute emergency & will be let go.

My hunch is Leeson, Wood, Francois, Pearson, Kadji, Taylor-Clarke & Backwell also are in this group too now for a variety of different reasons, plus at least one of our U21 goalkeepers.

[Alex_BCFC]

I’m not sure it’s doing all of them any good. I think Yeboah will be good but in all honest he isn’t up to chanpionship standard right now. Might be like Semenyo in a couple of years but needs that time out on loan in league 2 or something 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

5 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

I actually prefer it this way tbh. We get to see them progress with us rather than elsewhere 

I agree I think it helps them find their feet at the right level.  Ephraim is getting regular minutes.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

1 hour ago, Alex_BCFC said:

I’m not sure it’s doing all of them any good. I think Yeboah will be good but in all honest he isn’t up to chanpionship standard right now. Might be like Semenyo in a couple of years but needs that time out on loan in league 2 or something 

I don't know he feels like he's a goal away from being sensational.  I really love watching him in our shirt he's going to be a fantastic player regardless of if he finds goals or not he could just drop back onto one of the wings.

[Shuffle]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

You see far more of this level than I do & as always, I respect your view.

However I think bluntly there are now a significant group in the 21s who aren’t ever going to feature in the first team squad, unless like happened with Idehen this week there simply is no one else.

Re Idehen I still believe that he’s got no long term future with us, will only get on the pitch in an absolute emergency & will be let go.

My hunch is Leeson, Wood, Francois, Pearson, Kadji, Taylor-Clarke & Backwell also are in this group too now for a variety of different reasons, plus at least one of our U21 goalkeepers.

I agree with what you’ve said & all players mentioned are at risk of exiting the club.  My slight hesitation about academy football was purely how lads not involved with u21s and let’s face it we are nearly in November, are elevated straight to first team ahead of others as surely the natural progression would be U21s rather than continue with 18s.  I can’t quite work out why from Aug- Oct neither James or Nelson bar odd appearances aren’t selected for 21s but are for first team.    

[Alex_BCFC]

36 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I don't know he feels like he's a goal away from being sensational.  I really love watching him in our shirt he's going to be a fantastic player regardless of if he finds goals or not he could just drop back onto one of the wings.

I don’t see it myself - but then I didn’t see it with Bolasie who similarly had no idea what he was doing (as did the defenders). Just think he needs that experience that a Semenyo got.

[maxjak]

Operating with such a small squad is IMO negligent and plain dumb?  We have a long repeated history of injuries, especially with players such as Naithsmith and Williams, who generally play half a season, but, who are, of course blameless.   However knowing that a few injuries when operating with         such a small squad would inevitably prove to be very disruptive and stretch our resources to the limit, seems to me extremely poor forward planning and a lack of foresight

I appreciate we are not unique in suffering injuries, as it comes with the territory, but with SEVEN potential first teamers presently on the sidelines, NP has his hand's tied, and so has absolutely no chance of building the necessary momentum to challenge for the top six?

Edited October 26, 2023 by maxjak

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Operating with such a small squad is IMO negligent and plain dumb?  We have a long repeated history of injuries, especially with players such as Naithsmith and Williams, who generally play half a season, but, who are, of course blameless.   However knowing that a few injuries when operating with         such a small squad would inevitably prove to be very disruptive and stretch our resources to the limit, seems to me extremely poor forward planning and a lack of foresight

I appreciate we are not unique in suffering injuries, as it comes with the territory, but with SEVEN potential first teamers presently on the sidelines, NP has his hand's tied, and so has absolutely no chance of building the necessary momentum to challenge for the top six?

Funny how they have a decent availability record before joining us.

Williams has generally been quite available this season and it improved a bit last season too.

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Operating with such a small squad restrictive playing budget is IMO negligent and plain dumb

 

[The Fat Controller]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

Okay, I'll nibble.... Is a restrictive playing budget responsible for the number of concurrent injuries we have?

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

I remember that we previously spoke about it was a huge gamble to try and get through til Jan with no injuries. 

That gamble has well and truly backfired. 

[maxjak]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

Just semantics?

[GrahamC]

7 minutes ago, sinenomine said:

Okay, I'll nibble.... Is a restrictive playing budget responsible for the number of concurrent injuries we have?

Not necessarily directly but it isn’t that wise to try & rely on the same 16 to 18 players, is it?

We knew before a ball was kicked that Atkinson was out long term & McCrorie would be missing until January at the earliest.

Once Kalas moved on we effectively tried to get through the first half of the season with just 3 centre halves & 1 fit right back, presumably largely on the basis of Vyner & Dickie’s historically good availability records.

It hasn’t worked.

[downendcity]

Should this thread be retitled "losing a small squad"?

[The Fat Controller]

31 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Not necessarily directly but it isn’t that wise to try & rely on the same 16 to 18 players, is it?

We knew before a ball was kicked that Atkinson was out long term & McCrorie would be missing until January at the earliest.

Once Kalas moved on we effectively tried to get through the first half of the season with just 3 centre halves & 1 fit right back, presumably largely on the basis of Vyner & Dickie’s historically good availability records.

It hasn’t worked.

Yes, that's all fair comment. 

I do think it's a fine balancing act as we don't want to return to the days of a bloated squad and signing players with no idea of what to do with them. 

I think we are probably only a couple light. We have been horribly exposed by the number, seriousness and timing of injuries. 

[Davefevs]

34 minutes ago, sinenomine said:

Okay, I'll nibble.... Is a restrictive playing budget responsible for the number of concurrent injuries we have?

@GrahamC has kinda answered it.  It’s a fair question, whether nibbling or not.

As per my post @ 10:52 yesterday on this thread:

you have to look at the nature of each injury too

In some respects the simple answer to your question, yes it is.

In an ideal world you’d be able to do a bit more rest / rotate / keep fresh.  As it stands we haven’t lost many players to muscle / fatigue type injuries this season, but we might over the coming weeks.  As fans we know players like Matty James might be a player who’d find it invaluable to get a one game rest, based on his 2 seasons here.  It’s hard to do that though.

Most fans wanted 2 more players, a combo of 2 of either a CB, a CM and a CM…maybe GK.  I think 2 players would make a big difference.  I still can’t get my head around why we couldn’t create some room in the wage budget (set in March).  Nor did I buy the explanation PA gave on SOTC re Scott, and that’s not a dig at PA either.

Out interest what was Kingy’s injury last night….hamstring?

[Loosey Boy]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

@GrahamC has kinda answered it.  It’s a fair question, whether nibbling or not.

As per my post @ 10:52 yesterday on this thread:

you have to look at the nature of each injury too

In some respects the simple answer to your question, yes it is.

In an ideal world you’d be able to do a bit more rest / rotate / keep fresh.  As it stands we haven’t lost many players to muscle / fatigue type injuries this season, but we might over the coming weeks.  As fans we know players like Matty James might be a player who’d find it invaluable to get a one game rest, based on his 2 seasons here.  It’s hard to do that though.

Most fans wanted 2 more players, a combo of 2 of either a CB, a CM and a CM…maybe GK.  I think 2 players would make a big difference.  I still can’t get my head around why we couldn’t create some room in the wage budget (set in March).  Nor did I buy the explanation PA gave on SOTC re Scott, and that’s not a dig at PA either.

Out interest what was Kingy’s injury last night….hamstring?

Yep, King went off with hamstring injury - having a scan per Nige’s presser earlier……we are gonna need Roberts at LB on Sat, just to put together a half-decent back four ….. could be a really challenging afternoon on Sat

[1960maaan]

Pearson has said he likes to work with a smaller squad.
He also appeared to want a couple more players in, so the small squad is smaller than he wanted due to budget constraints .
That has come back to bite us in the ass with a big injury list.
That impacts on how the Academy players will/have been used. 

TBF we have cover in every position (in theory), though Atkinson and Benarous being long term coming into the season has made it even tighter. Then add McCrorie .
Both RB's out
LB out 
3 of 4 CB's out
2 MF's out 
2 forwards out (depending how you list Benarous)

Then it just circles and starts again. Because you can't rest players they become more susceptible to injury, and so it goes. That also means you have little choice but to bring in the kids to cover. They have said they make decisions on a player by player case. Some need loans, some benefit from being with the first team. What ever we may think about X,Y or Z needing a run in a first team somewhere, that option has been taken away. 

14 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Most fans wanted 2 more players, a combo of 2 of either a CB, a CM and a CM…maybe GK.  I think 2 players would make a big difference.

That's what I was thinking....

One CB and the situation changes massively.

The last few games we aren't patching the centre of defence
That means more cover for MF & King isn't injured. 
TGH would be available to cover RB and Sykes could have stayed in his more normal role .
That means Weimann isn't in MF and we have another option centrally.
Add a MF option and it looks better again.

I hope Lansdown can see now it was false economy , what's the old expression. "Spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar " one for the kids there.
We go into two winnable games and could struggle, where we should be thinking of consolidating a top 8 position.
 

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Pearson has said he likes to work with a smaller squad.
He also appeared to want a couple more players in, so the small squad is smaller than he wanted due to budget constraints .
That has come back to bite us in the ass with a big injury list.
That impacts on how the Academy players will/have been used. 

TBF we have cover in every position (in theory), though Atkinson and Benarous being long term coming into the season has made it even tighter. Then add McCrorie .
Both RB's out
LB out 
3 of 4 CB's out
2 MF's out 
2 forwards out (depending how you list Benarous)

Then it just circles and starts again. Because you can't rest players they become more susceptible to injury, and so it goes. That also means you have little choice but to bring in the kids to cover. They have said they make decisions on a player by player case. Some need loans, some benefit from being with the first team. What ever we may think about X,Y or Z needing a run in a first team somewhere, that option has been taken away. 

That's what I was thinking....

One CB and the situation changes massively.

The last few games we aren't patching the centre of defence
That means more cover for MF & King isn't injured. 
TGH would be available to cover RB and Sykes could have stayed in his more normal role .
That means Weimann isn't in MF and we have another option centrally.
Add a MF option and it looks better again.

I hope Lansdown can see now it was false economy , what's the old expression. "Spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar " one for the kids there.
We go into two winnable games and could struggle, where we should be thinking of consolidating a top 8 position.
 

If Atkinson wasn't a long term injury then there is a case to say that Atkinson, Dickie and Vyner is probably enough. Especially as McCrorie could cover there and Pring if need be. 

I posted in pre season saying that whilst it's great having players that can cover multiple positions, if they get injured then you also lose cover for multiple positions. 

With the Atkinson injury and then especially with the McCrorie illness, we needed to sign another CB. Even if it was only a loan. 

None of us were demanding we spent 5 million on a cb. Dickie has been incredible value for money. 

Spending 1-2 million could have dramatically improved our current situation and I'd be quite confident we'd be in the top 6.

[1960maaan]

5 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

If Atkinson wasn't a long term injury then there is a case to say that Atkinson, Dickie and Vyner is probably enough. Especially as McCrorie could cover there and Pring if need be. 

I posted in pre season saying that whilst it's great having players that can cover multiple positions, if they get injured then you also lose cover for multiple positions. 

With the Atkinson injury and then especially with the McCrorie illness, we needed to sign another CB. Even if it was only a loan. 

None of us were demanding we spent 5 million on a cb. Dickie has been incredible value for money. 

Spending 1-2 million could have dramatically improved our current situation and I'd be quite confident we'd be in the top 6.

I must admit, pre season ( with Atkinson known to be missing ) I thought we had enough cover. 3 CB's to cover 2 places , plus McCrorie , Tanner , Pring and King for cover in emergencies . As you say, McCrorie's injury shifted things a bit.
No one expects, or can plan for 9/10 injuries , but one CB signing easies things a fair bit.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

I must admit, pre season ( with Atkinson known to be missing ) I thought we had enough cover. 3 CB's to cover 2 places , plus McCrorie , Tanner , Pring and King for cover in emergencies . As you say, McCrorie's injury shifted things a bit.
No one expects, or can plan for 9/10 injuries , but one CB signing easies things a fair bit.

I've just realised as I was typing this that both of us have forgotten to mention Naismith but I think his injury record shows he can't be relied upon to be consistently fit.

I think what we could have maybe looked at is to sign a defensive midfielder that can also play cb. 

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

If Atkinson wasn't a long term injury then there is a case to say that Atkinson, Dickie and Vyner is probably enough. Especially as McCrorie could cover there and Pring if need be. 

I posted in pre season saying that whilst it's great having players that can cover multiple positions, if they get injured then you also lose cover for multiple positions. 

With the Atkinson injury and then especially with the McCrorie illness, we needed to sign another CB. Even if it was only a loan. 

None of us were demanding we spent 5 million on a cb. Dickie has been incredible value for money. 

Spending 1-2 million could have dramatically improved our current situation and I'd be quite confident we'd be in the top 6.

I think pretty much all of us agree on your post and @1960maaan’s too.

The only other dynamic to bring into is attracting the right player.

Taking the CB situation:

Vyner, Atkinson (once fit), Dickie, Naismith - with cover from Roberts and McCrorie - how difficult does it become to attract someone of the right level / profile…and then ask them to bide their time?  As you’ll recall, I liked the look of Jake O’Brien (Palace at the time), as I thought he might be a signing who could come in when needed, play cup games, etc, but wouldn’t be beating the managers door down at lack of minutes either.  That’s the theory anyway. But he ended up going to Lyon in Ligue 1 for €1m. He wanted to play and stop being farmed out on loans.  So that ruled him out on my theory…let alone our budgetary constraints.

I guess the other dynamic is that perhaps we thought Araoye and Knight-Lebel were a bit closer to being ready than they are.  Both have had difficulties in u21 games, let alone exposing them to first team matches.

Re Dickie - yes, been hugely impressed with him.

Your final sentence - just echoes my overall comments that the budget / strategy is really knee-capping (it’s worse than hamstringing) Nige.

[The Fat Controller]

15 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@GrahamC has kinda answered it.  It’s a fair question, whether nibbling or not.

As per my post @ 10:52 yesterday on this thread:

you have to look at the nature of each injury too

In some respects the simple answer to your question, yes it is.

In an ideal world you’d be able to do a bit more rest / rotate / keep fresh.  As it stands we haven’t lost many players to muscle / fatigue type injuries this season, but we might over the coming weeks.  As fans we know players like Matty James might be a player who’d find it invaluable to get a one game rest, based on his 2 seasons here.  It’s hard to do that though.

Most fans wanted 2 more players, a combo of 2 of either a CB, a CM and a CM…maybe GK.  I think 2 players would make a big difference.  I still can’t get my head around why we couldn’t create some room in the wage budget (set in March).  Nor did I buy the explanation PA gave on SOTC re Scott, and that’s not a dig at PA either.

Out interest what was Kingy’s injury last night….hamstring?

Yes, Graham's post and yours from Wednesday sum it up. 

There is definitely balance to be had, and there has to compromise too. I think some of that comes in the form of versatility, which I know is not to everyone's liking. Having a CB capable of playing in midfield come in eases the pressure on players we are having to flog and also offers some financial balance. I appreciate finding players like that of the requisite quality is not easy. 

In an ideal world, yes, another GK for example to genuinely challenge MOL. I am pleased with Pearson's use of the academy and if we have genuine quality coming through then we do not want to block the pathway. It seems we are beyond sensible use of these youngsters at the moment, so again, a balance to be had. 

[And Its Smith]

If we had 10 injuries when Andy Ralls was here he’d be getting pelters.  

[Davefevs]

Just now, And Its Smith said:

If we had 10 injuries when Andy Ralls was here he’d be getting pelters.  

Ignoring the medical team, we had a bigger squad, able to absorb injury volume to an extent.