Substitutes & squad size

[GrahamC]

I’ve been looking at this & certainly think it is a factor in our form this season.

In midweek Ipswich were able to make a quadruple substitution & bring on 4 players who had a massive impact on the game.

Last week although Cardiff & ourselves were evenly matched, their bench was far stronger than ours, experienced pros like Fam & Mahlon Romeo were unused subs whereas ours is often full of kids & Andy King.

Incredibly in 10 of our 18 away games so far this season we haven’t filled the bench, we had just 7 subs at Ipswich & at Cardiff we had 8 that included 2 goalkeepers & contained only one player that had ever started a league game for us.

If you look at our January business we were unlucky with Twine but we really didn’t address this at all & as an aside whilst I understand the background to the Bird deal, surely Aldershot didn’t have the same “pull” & Josh Stokes could definitely be occupying a spot after we brought him in.

This definitely needs looking at in the summer, we have tried to run far too thin & even with injuries (& on that score we knew Atkinson & Benarous would miss most of the season at a minimum) you have to expect a couple to be missing.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

This definitely needs looking at in the summer, we have tried to run far too thin & even with injuries (& on that score we knew Atkinson & Benarous would miss most of the season at a minimum) you have to expect a couple to be missing.

They set the budget too low!

In previous seasons I understood why.

This summer, it was just “them” being petty.

[GrahamC]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

They set the budget too low!

In previous seasons I understood why.

This summer, it was just “them” being petty.

Maybe they did but it is still about smart spend.

Going back a few years we brought in Tommy Rowe, who was undoubtedly a bottom third wage earner at most but a good versatile pro who had a decent availability record.

At the time he looked an odd, atypical signing but although things went South for him & us in his second year, I can see why we did it.

[WeAreThePigs]

Our squad depth is too thin, I’m assuming this is down to the board not wanting to give NP cash to spend and Jan being seen as a stop gap until the summer 

[Sleepy1968]

I'm not sure the City hierarchy are clued up enough on what impact the number of substitutes allowed has had on required squad depth and the in game management skillset.

With most L1 clubs probably having poor squad depth, LM's in game management might not have been known or tested much before his move here.

[Swede]

Not filling the subs bench does limit your opportunities. I am astonished that this goes on. I thought this was basic coaching. There are plenty of good players out there that could do a better job in the short term than some of the youngsters, and you have to include Mebude in that list who seems unable to free himself from nerves.

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Maybe they did but it is still about smart spend.

Going back a few years we brought in Tommy Rowe, who was undoubtedly a bottom third wage earner at most but a good versatile pro who had a decent availability record.

At the time he looked an odd, atypical signing but although things went South for him & us in his second year, I can see why we did it.

As long as we’ve got two players per position….all is good

[Silvio Dante]

I remember when we first went to 9 subs there was an Evening Post article which spoke around “starters” and “finishers” - ie the 9 subs allowed you to change things, execute them differently at a stage of the game without having to worry about keeping changes in reserve due to injury (for avoidance of doubt that can be like for like as long as things are working).

Speaking to my Ipswich mate, the quadruple change there was always intended - those four were the designated finishers to take advantage of what was expected to be a tiring back line.

Re the Jan business- I’m on record as saying I understood it and liked it other than Twine (and in hindsight from what’s been seen Medube) - I thought we had enough to get us through the season without going up or down and also, with that “extended pre season” in mind expected to see more young players filling the 9 to see what they could do. That hasn’t happened and is unlikely to.

But yeah - definitely next season we need to look at the “finishers” concept a bit more, particularly when allowing us to change games. And that means a full bench.

[Kid in the Riot]

13 minutes ago, Swede said:

Not filling the subs bench does limit your opportunities. I am astonished that this goes on. I thought this was basic coaching. There are plenty of good players out there that could do a better job in the short term than some of the youngsters, and you have to include Mebude in that list who seems unable to free himself from nerves.

I looked at it a couple of months ago and we're one of the only clubs to regularly not fill the bench. I agree with you, it's absolutely bizarre to me, especially when we have a really good academy. 

Why would you not give yourself the most options available? 

[E.G.Red]

5 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I looked at it a couple of months ago and we're one of the only clubs to regularly not fill the bench. I agree with you, it's absolutely bizarre to me, especially when we have a really good academy. 

Why would you not give yourself the most options available? 

Not sure why they didn't fill it with youngsters such as Adam Murphy to give them the experience of being  inolved around the 1st team and what they can aspire to 

[Ashton Fete]

No matter the manager whenever I see a bench without the full quota I find it offensive to the academy not to give someone that opportunity to be in the match day squad even if the chances of playing are remote 

You certainly can’t play someone who isn’t even there so you’re no worse off

[petehinton]

No ‘big 18s game’ to blame things on today if there’s not a full bench. 

[mozo]

47 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

I’ve been looking at this & certainly think it is a factor in our form this season.

In midweek Ipswich were able to make a quadruple substitution & bring on 4 players who had a massive impact on the game.

Last week although Cardiff & ourselves were evenly matched, their bench was far stronger than ours, experienced pros like Fam & Mahlon Romeo were unused subs whereas ours is often full of kids & Andy King.

Incredibly in 10 of our 18 away games so far this season we haven’t filled the bench, we had just 7 subs at Ipswich & at Cardiff we had 8 that included 2 goalkeepers & contained only one player that had ever started a league game for us.

If you look at our January business we were unlucky with Twine but we really didn’t address this at all & as an aside whilst I understand the background to the Bird deal, surely Aldershot didn’t have the same “pull” & Josh Stokes could definitely be occupying a spot after we brought him in.

This definitely needs looking at in the summer, we have tried to run far too thin & even with injuries (& on that score we knew Atkinson & Benarous would miss most of the season at a minimum) you have to expect a couple to be missing.

Completely agree Graham!

Even reduced injury count leaves us looking limited, and that's with us relying on players like Mehmeti, Bell (pre-injury) and Cornick, to give us attacking quality, which at times they do, but at least 2 of those are not equipped yet to do so consistently.

Was letting Weimann go a big mistake? Or just the failure to bring more Championship ready players?

 

[LondonBristolian]

1 minute ago, Ashton Fete said:

No matter the manager whenever I see a bench without the full quota I find it offensive to the academy not to give someone that opportunity to be in the match day squad even if the chances of playing are remote 

You certainly can’t play someone who isn’t even there so you’re no worse off

What worries me is the message is sends out. If Manning genuinely believes none of our reserve team are ready to play for the first team even in an emergency then that is a shame but ultimately his call to make.  But, by not even naming them on the bench, it implies to those at the levels below the reserves - under-18s etc - that young players will not be trusted and there isn’t a pathway.

That has to subconsciously hit motivation levels as what are the players working towards?

[Roe]

Luckily we have such a great pipeline of young talent to fill those spaces..

[Major Isewater]

8 minutes ago, Roe said:

Luckily we have such a great pipeline of young talent to fill those spaces..

Thanks to Lord Brian Tinnion. 
 

 

[Roadrunner]

12 minutes ago, Roe said:

12 minutes ago, Roe said:

Luckily we have such a great pipeline of young talent to fill those spaces..

Untill management sent them all on loan to WSM and Bath.

 

[Sleepy1968]

36 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

What worries me is the message is sends out. If Manning genuinely believes none of our reserve team are ready to play for the first team even in an emergency then that is a shame but ultimately his call to make.  But, by not even naming them on the bench, it implies to those at the levels below the reserves - under-18s etc - that young players will not be trusted and there isn’t a pathway.

That has to subconsciously hit motivation levels as what are the players working towards?

I gather no one thinks much of the u21s*, and the u18s played Thursday night.

But even if they hadn't, you're right,  he's not sitting one of them on the bench is he.

ED: * Excluding the ones who usually play up in the u21s

Edited March 10 by Sleepy1968

[mozo]

1 minute ago, Sleepy1968 said:

I gather no one thinks much of the u21s*, and the u18s played Thursday night.

But even if they hadn't, you're right,  he's not sitting one of them on the bench is he.

ED: * Excluding the ones who usually play up in the u21s

He did say that they are frequently bringing young players into the first team squad to train, so there's an integration there. I wonder if there's a practical reason why those players don't fill the bench, or is it that they don't see tye value, or the reverse, that the bench is sacrosanct for players who earn it over a longer period?

[NickJ]

Cotts was slated for just having one game with one too few subs

[Roadrunner]

So a must win game at home and we start with one up front. Although he talked about playing Nahki and Tommy together. Not a full bench and a player he likes, but has only trained a little. Worrying, go on prove me wrong.

[Lack of Action Man]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

In midweek Ipswich were able to make a quadruple substitution & bring on 4 players who had a massive impact on the game.

 

A great point made here. For me, we do not have any subs who I would define as “game changers”. 

If football’s expansion of substitutions is leading towards a system more like rugby union, where you have “starters” and “finishers” then you have to expect that your “finishers” are both capable of holding a lead or turning over a deficit.

We just don’t have anyone who falls in that bracket for me.

[GrahamC]

7 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

So a must win game at home and we start with one up front. Although he talked about playing Nahki and Tommy together. Not a full bench and a player he likes, but has only trained a little. Worrying, go on prove me wrong.

Not sure it was actually Einstein who said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing & expecting different results but there is a WW1 General approach here at times.

Knight too, not sure we are making best use of him, either.

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, GrahamC said:

Not sure it was actually Einstein who said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing & expecting different results but there is a WW1 General approach here at times.

Knight too, not sure we are making best use of him, either.

 

[Redhed123]

28 minutes ago, mozo said:

He did say that they are frequently bringing young players into the first team squad to train, so there's an integration there. I wonder if there's a practical reason why those players don't fill the bench, or is it that they don't see tye value, or the reverse, that the bench is sacrosanct for players who earn it over a longer period?

No consistency. Bring them in then drop them again back to 18s.

[Redhed123]

34 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

I gather no one thinks much of the u21s*, and the u18s played Thursday night.

But even if they hadn't, you're right,  he's not sitting one of them on the bench is he.

ED: * Excluding the ones who usually play up in the u21s

Kadji and Taylor-clarke now gone out on loan. Not much left of academy u21s team.

[tin]

1 hour ago, Sleepy1968 said:

I'm not sure the City hierarchy are clued up enough on what impact the number of substitutes allowed has had on required squad depth and the in game management skillset.

With most L1 clubs probably having poor squad depth, LM's in game management might not have been known or tested much before his move here.

I’m sure you’re correct. But JL will have us belief he’s clued up when it comes to the medical side of it, specifically players being deconditioned. 

[petehinton]

Not a full bench, our season saver loanee Twine included but clearly nowhere near fit enough to play any part again, our other season saver Mebude unused sub again. Great stuff 

[GrahamC]

16 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Not a full bench, our season saver loanee Twine included but clearly nowhere near fit enough to play any part again, our other season saver Mebude unused sub again. Great stuff 

Said on another thread this summed up our January transfer business.

Twine has been on the bench twice now since his debut but it is blindingly obvious that he isn’t actually fit enough to come on.

Mebude was so shocking against QPR that we now don’t trust him enough to bring on, he’s had 44 minutes on the pitch in the last 7 games.

[mozo]

4 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Said on another thread this summed up our January transfer business.

Twine has been on the bench twice now since his debut but it is blindingly obvious that he isn’t actually fit enough to come on.

Mebude was so shocking against QPR that we now don’t trust him enough to bring on, he’s had 44 minutes on the pitch in the last 7 games.

To be fair though Graham, Twine got injured just after he arrived so you can't blame the recruitment. If anything you should sympathise for Manning, no?

The Mebude one always felt like one that would play only 'if we need him', ie for pace, direct play etc. But not playing him on a losing streak when fans are booing, kind of makes sense? I actually felt the same when Yeboah would come on when we were struggling in a game, which isn't really an ideal introduction to Championship football.

Edited March 10 by mozo