|
|
Post by cafcginge on Aug 12, 2024 8:51:39 GMT
Can very much see us being defensively reliant this season. Therefore feel we will see a lot of 1-0 or 2-1 results rather than high scoring games.
As for Saturday, good start to the season. Not as fluent as possible but NJ acknowledged that which is good. I think I would start berry over Anderson as even though I love Anderson’s work rates I would like to possibly see a bit more composure in the midfield on the ball. I would keep the rest the same unless TC illness prevents him from playing which then I would start Kanu unless godden is ready to come back in.
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Aug 12, 2024 10:08:04 GMT
Whilst we’re suggesting where we need to be stronger, I’d like to think that targeted coaching will also play a part… don’t write players off to early… NJ should be doing this as a given… IMO… Not writing anyone off Andy but we all want this to be a promotion season. It just might be me but I prefer players coming in who are experienced and have statistics to back that up. Coaching youngsters along the way is fine by me but on the job, I'm not so keen on. After three seasons of mid-table, it's reasonable to ask for us to be competitive given our budget which is always top six. But automatic promotion and two points per game is a big ask. Leaburn, Campbell and others will be 20 this season so they have a couple of seasons behind them. AND their contracts don't count towards SCMP limits. The question of how much we play and develop our U21s has been discussed for a decade and more. They need minutes but the fans and management need performances and results. There's a definite path to the top six in front of us. Time will tell how many minutes the u21s play. We can be sure this will be a hot topic before the window closes, but I'd imagine that we don't have much budget headroom to bring in more older players. But that's another thread! Once Nathan Jones has had another five months managing our squad we can expect him and others to develop our side, as well as being clear where we need to strengthen. |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Aug 12, 2024 11:12:38 GMT
Not writing anyone off Andy but we all want this to be a promotion season. It just might be me but I prefer players coming in who are experienced and have statistics to back that up. Coaching youngsters along the way is fine by me but on the job, I'm not so keen on. After three seasons of mid-table, it's reasonable to ask for us to be competitive given our budget which is always top six. But automatic promotion and two points per game is a big ask. Leaburn, Campbell and others will be 20 this season so they have a couple of seasons behind them. AND their contracts don't count towards SCMP limits. The question of how much we play and develop our U21s has been discussed for a decade and more. They need minutes but the fans and management need performances and results. There's a definite path to the top six in front of us. Time will tell how many minutes the u21s play. We can be sure this will be a hot topic before the window closes, but I'd imagine that we don't have much budget headroom to bring in more older players. But that's another thread! Once Nathan Jones has had another five months managing our squad we can expect him and others to develop our side, as well as being clear where we need to strengthen. All of that is correct but you keep mentioning the fact that the younger players don't count towards the SCMP limits but with the equity injection rules it doesn't, really, matter. If the reality is that youth players earn much less than seasoned professionals then that makes sense but you get what you pay for. We could play eleven U18s in every game, release all the other players and the club might, even, make money - but we may well be relegated. I thought we looked much more solid on Saturday and I think we will be hard to beat, this season, but, without that little bit of je n'est ce quoi we might find that we will fall short at the end of the season. Despite the fact that it is often dragged out for comedy value, Alan Hansen's comment about winning nothing with kids is only famous because no one disagreed with him when he said it - and the class of 92 was no ordinary group of kids. There is a limit as to how many young players can be integrated into a team without their inexperience affecting results. I, 100%, agree that bringing players through the Academy can generate income and reduce costs but there is a balancing act between not loosing too much money and being stuck in the third division until the club reduces in size so that it can never get out again. I've also watched what Brentford have done and they make more money, buying talent that goes straight into their first team and sold for a profit, than we do by selling our best players for a fraction of what the likes of Brentford get for them a few years later. They also have no Academy costs. I'm not suggesting that we go down that route but I am concerned that the club's KPIs are too focused on developing young players than bringing in the best player available for a specific position. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Aug 12, 2024 11:55:32 GMT
After three seasons of mid-table, it's reasonable to ask for us to be competitive given our budget which is always top six. But automatic promotion and two points per game is a big ask. Leaburn, Campbell and others will be 20 this season so they have a couple of seasons behind them. AND their contracts don't count towards SCMP limits. The question of how much we play and develop our U21s has been discussed for a decade and more. They need minutes but the fans and management need performances and results. There's a definite path to the top six in front of us. Time will tell how many minutes the u21s play. We can be sure this will be a hot topic before the window closes, but I'd imagine that we don't have much budget headroom to bring in more older players. But that's another thread! Once Nathan Jones has had another five months managing our squad we can expect him and others to develop our side, as well as being clear where we need to strengthen. All of that is correct but you keep mentioning the fact that the younger players don't count towards the SCMP limits but with the equity injection rules it doesn't, really, matter. If the reality is that youth players earn much less than seasoned professionals then that makes sense but you get what you pay for. We could play eleven U18s in every game, release all the other players and the club might, even, make money - but we may well be relegated. I thought we looked much more solid on Saturday and I think we will be hard to beat, this season, but, without that little bit of je n'est ce quoi we might find that we will fall short at the end of the season. Despite the fact that it is often dragged out for comedy value, Alan Hansen's comment about winning nothing with kids is only famous because no one disagreed with him when he said it - and the class of 92 was no ordinary group of kids. There is a limit as to how many young players can be integrated into a team without their inexperience affecting results. I, 100%, agree that bringing players through the Academy can generate income and reduce costs but there is a balancing act between not loosing too much money and being stuck in the third division until the club reduces in size so that it can never get out again. I've also watched what Brentford have done and they make more money, buying talent that goes straight into their first team and sold for a profit, than we do by selling our best players for a fraction of what the likes of Brentford get for them a few years later. They also have no Academy costs. I'm not suggesting that we go down that route but I am concerned that the club's KPIs are too focused on developing young players than bringing in the best player available for a specific position. Your bottom paragraph is the absolute nail on the head for me and they are my exact sentiments. I want to see players in the team who know what it takes to get out of the division. You cannot have players learning on the job and being given a place in the starting line up for that reason. There is a very good reason that we are all excited about seeing Dixon in the side than we are some of our own youngsters. Kanu, Campbell, Asiimwe and Mitchell all need a loan to improve their game without having to find places in our side for them to do it. It will benefit both them and us in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Aug 12, 2024 13:05:58 GMT
All of that is correct but you keep mentioning the fact that the younger players don't count towards the SCMP limits but with the equity injection rules it doesn't, really, matter. If the reality is that youth players earn much less than seasoned professionals then that makes sense but you get what you pay for. We could play eleven U18s in every game, release all the other players and the club might, even, make money - but we may well be relegated. I thought we looked much more solid on Saturday and I think we will be hard to beat, this season, but, without that little bit of je n'est ce quoi we might find that we will fall short at the end of the season. Despite the fact that it is often dragged out for comedy value, Alan Hansen's comment about winning nothing with kids is only famous because no one disagreed with him when he said it - and the class of 92 was no ordinary group of kids. There is a limit as to how many young players can be integrated into a team without their inexperience affecting results. I, 100%, agree that bringing players through the Academy can generate income and reduce costs but there is a balancing act between not loosing too much money and being stuck in the third division until the club reduces in size so that it can never get out again. I've also watched what Brentford have done and they make more money, buying talent that goes straight into their first team and sold for a profit, than we do by selling our best players for a fraction of what the likes of Brentford get for them a few years later. They also have no Academy costs. I'm not suggesting that we go down that route but I am concerned that the club's KPIs are too focused on developing young players than bringing in the best player available for a specific position.Your bottom paragraph is the absolute nail on the head for me and they are my exact sentiments. I want to see players in the team who know what it takes to get out of the division. You cannot have players learning on the job and being given a place in the starting line up for that reason. There is a very good reason that we are all excited about seeing Dixon in the side than we are some of our own youngsters. Kanu, Campbell, Asiimwe and Mitchell all need a loan to improve their game without having to find places in our side for them to do it. It will benefit both them and us in the long run. Completely agree. We shouldn't compromise our teams ability to achieve promotions etc just to showcase our Academy players and then ultimately fall short of our objectives. Many of our Academy players wouldn't get into our team/squad if they weren't Academy products. We need as many as possible to go out to a loan club where they will play week in week out. I wonder how many would get into other League 1 sides. Leaburn is the only one for me. |
|
|
|
Post by aucklandaddick on Aug 12, 2024 13:19:04 GMT
Your bottom paragraph is the absolute nail on the head for me and they are my exact sentiments. I want to see players in the team who know what it takes to get out of the division. You cannot have players learning on the job and being given a place in the starting line up for that reason. There is a very good reason that we are all excited about seeing Dixon in the side than we are some of our own youngsters. Kanu, Campbell, Asiimwe and Mitchell all need a loan to improve their game without having to find places in our side for them to do it. It will benefit both them and us in the long run. Completely agree. We shouldn't compromise our teams ability to achieve promotions etc just to showcase our Academy players and then ultimately fall short of our objectives. Many of our Academy players wouldn't get into our team/squad if they weren't Academy products. We need as many as possible to go out to a loan club where they will play week in week out. I wonder how many would get into other League 1 sides. Leaburn is the only one for me. I always tend to use your last paragraph as a benchmark…..would any of these players be good enough to get a game at Brum, Bolton, Huddersfield, Rotherham, Wrexham, Peterborough etc….If the answer is no and we have ambitions to compete at the top then why should they be playing week in week out for us… They are in the side because NJ obviously rates them, he played TC up top on Saturday as opposed to Kanu and Anderson instead of Berry which has been a major talking point amongst the fan base after Saturday…..It will be very interesting to see what happens when Godden is fit again and available for selection? |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Aug 12, 2024 13:31:31 GMT
Completely agree. We shouldn't compromise our teams ability to achieve promotions etc just to showcase our Academy players and then ultimately fall short of our objectives. Many of our Academy players wouldn't get into our team/squad if they weren't Academy products. We need as many as possible to go out to a loan club where they will play week in week out. I wonder how many would get into other League 1 sides. Leaburn is the only one for me. I always tend to use your last paragraph as a benchmark…..would any of these players be good enough to get a game at Brum, Bolton, Huddersfield, Rotherham, Wrexham, Peterborough etc….If the answer is no and we have ambitions to compete at the top then why should they be playing week in week out for us… They are in the side because NJ obviously rates them, he played TC up top on Saturday as opposed to Kanu and Anderson instead of Berry which has been a major talking point amongst the fan base after Saturday…..It will be very interesting to see what happens when Godden is fit again and available for selection. To be honest with you mate, the sinister side of me thinks the MAIN reason TC is in the side is to show off our academy products. Those I have spoken to seem to seriously overate them. |
|
|
|
Post by reddan12 on Aug 12, 2024 13:34:30 GMT
I always tend to use your last paragraph as a benchmark…..would any of these players be good enough to get a game at Brum, Bolton, Huddersfield, Rotherham, Wrexham, Peterborough etc….If the answer is no and we have ambitions to compete at the top then why should they be playing week in week out for us… They are in the side because NJ obviously rates them, he played TC up top on Saturday as opposed to Kanu and Anderson instead of Berry which has been a major talking point amongst the fan base after Saturday…..It will be very interesting to see what happens when Godden is fit again and available for selection. To be honest with you mate, the sinister side of me thinks the MAIN reason TC is in the side is to show off our academy products. Those I have spoken to seem to seriously overate them.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Aug 12, 2024 14:44:46 GMT
After three seasons of mid-table, it's reasonable to ask for us to be competitive given our budget which is always top six. But automatic promotion and two points per game is a big ask. Leaburn, Campbell and others will be 20 this season so they have a couple of seasons behind them. AND their contracts don't count towards SCMP limits. The question of how much we play and develop our U21s has been discussed for a decade and more. They need minutes but the fans and management need performances and results. There's a definite path to the top six in front of us. Time will tell how many minutes the u21s play. We can be sure this will be a hot topic before the window closes, but I'd imagine that we don't have much budget headroom to bring in more older players. But that's another thread! Once Nathan Jones has had another five months managing our squad we can expect him and others to develop our side, as well as being clear where we need to strengthen. All of that is correct but you keep mentioning the fact that the younger players don't count towards the SCMP limits but with the equity injection rules it doesn't, really, matter. If the reality is that youth players earn much less than seasoned professionals then that makes sense but you get what you pay for. We could play eleven U18s in every game, release all the other players and the club might, even, make money - but we may well be relegated. I thought we looked much more solid on Saturday and I think we will be hard to beat, this season, but, without that little bit of je n'est ce quoi we might find that we will fall short at the end of the season. Despite the fact that it is often dragged out for comedy value, Alan Hansen's comment about winning nothing with kids is only famous because no one disagreed with him when he said it - and the class of 92 was no ordinary group of kids. There is a limit as to how many young players can be integrated into a team without their inexperience affecting results. I, 100%, agree that bringing players through the Academy can generate income and reduce costs but there is a balancing act between not loosing too much money and being stuck in the third division until the club reduces in size so that it can never get out again. I've also watched what Brentford have done and they make more money, buying talent that goes straight into their first team and sold for a profit, than we do by selling our best players for a fraction of what the likes of Brentford get for them a few years later. They also have no Academy costs. I'm not suggesting that we go down that route but I am concerned that the club's KPIs are too focused on developing young players than bringing in the best player available for a specific position. That’s very well put kings hill addick The balancing act you describe is one the club needs to think very carefully about. It’s great to have a clear pathway from the academy, but that can’t be at the expense of success for the First XI. An important part of the challenge for the club here obviously is to make the right assessment about its current crop of young players. We clearly don’t have a Shelvey, Gomez, Konsa or a Lookman, but it’s possible the club believes that Leaburn, Kanu, Anderson, Campbell and Asiimwe, for example, are all capable of playing Championship football. I don’t feel able to judge that one way or another, but it’s an assessment the club has to try to make and the conclusion they come to is likely to significantly impact the management of the squad. There’s another more subtle aspect to this dilemma too. The bookies currently reckon we’ve got around a 20% chance of winning promotion this season with Bolton having around a 40% chance. Opting to recruit and play more experienced players than our five prospects from the academy would obviously be more expensive (as you say), but it might not materially change our chances of success. Is it worth the extra cost to improve our odds from 20% to 25%, say? On the other hand, the club might believe that playing the likes of Leaburn, Anderson and Kanu this season, enabling them to develop under Jones and for his style of play, could significantly improve our chances next season. It might be worth a small sacrifice this season (promotion odds of 20 v 25) in the expectation that this time next season we might be in Bolton’s position. This is a bit stylised, but I suspect this is the kind of very deliberate trade off the club is wrestling with. The club is making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. There are no right answers and no guaranteed outcomes for any given set of inputs. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Aug 12, 2024 15:18:01 GMT
All of that is correct but you keep mentioning the fact that the younger players don't count towards the SCMP limits but with the equity injection rules it doesn't, really, matter. If the reality is that youth players earn much less than seasoned professionals then that makes sense but you get what you pay for. We could play eleven U18s in every game, release all the other players and the club might, even, make money - but we may well be relegated. I thought we looked much more solid on Saturday and I think we will be hard to beat, this season, but, without that little bit of je n'est ce quoi we might find that we will fall short at the end of the season. Despite the fact that it is often dragged out for comedy value, Alan Hansen's comment about winning nothing with kids is only famous because no one disagreed with him when he said it - and the class of 92 was no ordinary group of kids. There is a limit as to how many young players can be integrated into a team without their inexperience affecting results. I, 100%, agree that bringing players through the Academy can generate income and reduce costs but there is a balancing act between not loosing too much money and being stuck in the third division until the club reduces in size so that it can never get out again. I've also watched what Brentford have done and they make more money, buying talent that goes straight into their first team and sold for a profit, than we do by selling our best players for a fraction of what the likes of Brentford get for them a few years later. They also have no Academy costs. I'm not suggesting that we go down that route but I am concerned that the club's KPIs are too focused on developing young players than bringing in the best player available for a specific position. That’s very well put kings hill addick The balancing act you describe is one the club needs to think very carefully about. It’s great to have a clear pathway from the academy, but that can’t be at the expense of success for the First XI. An important part of the challenge for the club here obviously is to make the right assessment about its current crop of young players. We clearly don’t have a Shelvey, Gomez, Konsa or a Lookman, but it’s possible the club believes that Leaburn, Kanu, Anderson, Campbell and Asiimwe, for example, are all capable of playing Championship football. I don’t feel able to judge that one way or another, but it’s an assessment the club has to try to make and the conclusion they come to is likely to significantly impact the management of the squad. There’s another more subtle aspect to this dilemma too. The bookies currently reckon we’ve got around a 20% chance of winning promotion this season with Bolton having around a 40% chance. Opting to recruit and play more experienced players than our five prospects from the academy would obviously be more expensive (as you say), but it might not materially change our chances of success. Is it worth the extra cost to improve our odds from 20% to 25%, say? On the other hand, the club might believe that playing the likes of Leaburn, Anderson and Kanu this season, enabling them to develop under Jones and for his style of play, could significantly improve our chances next season. It might be worth a small sacrifice this season (promotion odds of 20 v 25) in the expectation that this time next season we might be in Bolton’s position. This is a bit stylised, but I suspect this is the kind of very deliberate trade off the club is wrestling with. The club is making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. There are no right answers and no guaranteed outcomes for any given set of inputs. Good post Chris. The issue we have is that I think Leaburn apart and maybe Anderson, our other youngsters have limited potential. As a few of the guys have already said none would get into a top 6 team and I can't see that being the case for some time to come. They are nowhere near the quality of the academy products that came before them. I think the owners want them in the side before they do new signings. I get not wanting to block paths but you can't wait forever when it's a pretty long one. A like Anderson but we can't play two defensive midfielders when Docherty is ineffective in front of them. Anderson needs to drop out for a CAM and come on and do what he's good at when we are protecting a lead. TC I'm not getting at all. I do think certain people see something in him what I don't. |
|
crapgame
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 113
|
Post by crapgame on Aug 12, 2024 15:32:05 GMT
That’s very well put kings hill addick The balancing act you describe is one the club needs to think very carefully about. It’s great to have a clear pathway from the academy, but that can’t be at the expense of success for the First XI. An important part of the challenge for the club here obviously is to make the right assessment about its current crop of young players. We clearly don’t have a Shelvey, Gomez, Konsa or a Lookman, but it’s possible the club believes that Leaburn, Kanu, Anderson, Campbell and Asiimwe, for example, are all capable of playing Championship football. I don’t feel able to judge that one way or another, but it’s an assessment the club has to try to make and the conclusion they come to is likely to significantly impact the management of the squad. There’s another more subtle aspect to this dilemma too. The bookies currently reckon we’ve got around a 20% chance of winning promotion this season with Bolton having around a 40% chance. Opting to recruit and play more experienced players than our five prospects from the academy would obviously be more expensive (as you say), but it might not materially change our chances of success. Is it worth the extra cost to improve our odds from 20% to 25%, say? On the other hand, the club might believe that playing the likes of Leaburn, Anderson and Kanu this season, enabling them to develop under Jones and for his style of play, could significantly improve our chances next season. It might be worth a small sacrifice this season (promotion odds of 20 v 25) in the expectation that this time next season we might be in Bolton’s position. This is a bit stylised, but I suspect this is the kind of very deliberate trade off the club is wrestling with. The club is making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. There are no right answers and no guaranteed outcomes for any given set of inputs. Good post Chris. The issue we have is that I think Leaburn apart and naybe Anderson, our other youngsters have limited potential. As a few of the guys have already said none would get into a top 6 team and I can't see that being the case for some time to come. They are nowhere near the quality of our academy products before them. I think the owners want them in the side before new signings. I get not wanting to block paths but you can't wait forever when it's a pretty long one. A like Anderson but we can't play two defensive midfielders when Docherty is ineffective in front of them. Anderson needs to drop out for a CAM and come on and does what he's good at when we are protecting a lead. TC I'm not getting at all. I do think certain people see something in him what I don't. I actually have always thought that TC has some really good potential. Yes, he is young, inexperienced, a bit lightweight and looked a bit lost on saturday in that 10 role, but he is probably our only attacking midfielder/forward player that will pick the ball up and run at defenders, take them on and get a shot away. I am not saying he is highly talented but we currently dont have anyone else like him atm. |
|
|
|
Post by aucklandaddick on Aug 12, 2024 15:44:42 GMT
Good post Chris. The issue we have is that I think Leaburn apart and naybe Anderson, our other youngsters have limited potential. As a few of the guys have already said none would get into a top 6 team and I can't see that being the case for some time to come. They are nowhere near the quality of our academy products before them. I think the owners want them in the side before new signings. I get not wanting to block paths but you can't wait forever when it's a pretty long one. A like Anderson but we can't play two defensive midfielders when Docherty is ineffective in front of them. Anderson needs to drop out for a CAM and come on and does what he's good at when we are protecting a lead. TC I'm not getting at all. I do think certain people see something in him what I don't. I actually have always thought that TC has some really good potential. Yes, he is young, inexperienced, a bit lightweight and looked a bit lost on saturday in that 10 role, but he is probably our only attacking midfielder/forward player that will pick the ball up and run at defenders, take them on and get a shot away. I am not saying he is highly talented but we currently dont have anyone else like him atm. That’s because we haven’t recruited that type of creative player as of yet….. |
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Aug 12, 2024 15:49:38 GMT
Very good points Mundell! If I were to answer the question as to whether we have the balance right I’d be saying no right now.
But do I think it’s really going to make enough of a difference this year with the strength of the league? Probably not.
However, if we had this squad last year I would be very keen to strengthen and let the academy lot go on loan as it would have improved our chances in a weak division.
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Aug 12, 2024 18:40:03 GMT
That’s very well put kings hill addick The balancing act you describe is one the club needs to think very carefully about. It’s great to have a clear pathway from the academy, but that can’t be at the expense of success for the First XI. An important part of the challenge for the club here obviously is to make the right assessment about its current crop of young players. We clearly don’t have a Shelvey, Gomez, Konsa or a Lookman, but it’s possible the club believes that Leaburn, Kanu, Anderson, Campbell and Asiimwe, for example, are all capable of playing Championship football. I don’t feel able to judge that one way or another, but it’s an assessment the club has to try to make and the conclusion they come to is likely to significantly impact the management of the squad. There’s another more subtle aspect to this dilemma too. The bookies currently reckon we’ve got around a 20% chance of winning promotion this season with Bolton having around a 40% chance. Opting to recruit and play more experienced players than our five prospects from the academy would obviously be more expensive (as you say), but it might not materially change our chances of success. Is it worth the extra cost to improve our odds from 20% to 25%, say? On the other hand, the club might believe that playing the likes of Leaburn, Anderson and Kanu this season, enabling them to develop under Jones and for his style of play, could significantly improve our chances next season. It might be worth a small sacrifice this season (promotion odds of 20 v 25) in the expectation that this time next season we might be in Bolton’s position. This is a bit stylised, but I suspect this is the kind of very deliberate trade off the club is wrestling with. The club is making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. There are no right answers and no guaranteed outcomes for any given set of inputs. Good post Chris. The issue we have is that I think Leaburn apart and maybe Anderson, our other youngsters have limited potential. As a few of the guys have already said none would get into a top 6 team and I can't see that being the case for some time to come. They are nowhere near the quality of the academy products that came before them. I think the owners want them in the side before they do new signings. I get not wanting to block paths but you can't wait forever when it's a pretty long one. A like Anderson but we can't play two defensive midfielders when Docherty is ineffective in front of them. Anderson needs to drop out for a CAM and come on and do what he's good at when we are protecting a lead. TC I'm not getting at all. I do think certain people see something in him what I don't. Some very interesting points raised in several posts. The investors will surely want to see the squad in action for a few games before committing to further expenditure. Plus we need a few players leaving to create space. Perhaps the management require 20 games to develop the side, coach individuals and communicate to the investors? Plus we need more fans to show up and more sponsors to help pay for bigger salaries. For sure we might look to the investors to accelerate progress but they're already on the hook for current losses. Perhaps they want to see tangible progress on both the playing & commercial side before they agree to more investment. Nathan Jones has been here before as have Andy Scott and Charlie Methven. As long as we compete in the top six over the next few months, it appears that the case for further investment could/ should be made. Right now I can't see that we've played enough games to rule players out / identify exactly what we need to keep stepping up. Making the play-offs is a must. But assessing our ability to compete in those play off finals in 10 months time is virtually impossible today! In other words it's a journey... one where we need to be in a good place after the next window. And there's a lot of football to be played between now and then. |
|
|
|
Post by grapevine49 on Aug 12, 2024 21:23:36 GMT
Some good stuff here guys but I feel you are being a little generous and blurring one too many lines. Sorry I cannot get past the reality of as of Saturday the club had allocated shirts to just 15 Senior outfield players where;
- one has failed to operate as a fully functioning squad member for 2 years
- one failed to make any serious contribution for 2023/24 due to persistent injuries
- one failed to make any serious contribution for 2023/24 because he wasn’t good enough
- Godden was unfit.
For the very first game of the season the match day team starting requirement of 10 outfield players had but 11 viable outfield player options available.
Their support is seven 19yr & 20yr olds. Young men continue to grow until the age of 21. We can crawl over what database we like but not one of these lads has been through the mill of a fully competitive EFL League 1 season and come out the other side in one piece. Rotating in and out doesn’t quite cut it. Leaburn is not fit. Campbell Mk ll, Kanu and Anderson are all still learning on the job - but they are not proven senior pros. Asiimwe and Z. Mitchell are further behind. It doesn’t mean any of them can’t play. They can - but to deliver across a full EFL pro season it is a huge ask.
2-3yrs makes a huge difference as you can see with Ramsay, A. Mitchell and Ahadme.
In all honesty I wouldn’t touch the job with a barge pole. There is only so much any coach or Manager can do. As it stands it is the 8+8+8 structure outlined by Rodwell and in all probability the one SE7 sold to GFP in the first place - It is 4 senior players short.
As a result either by accident or design, against Wigan we saw standard League 1 attritional fare. I commend the lads for going out and getting the job done. They stopped Wigan scoring and secured the points. If all I have to take away from the game is their honest endeavour, discipline and winning. Then so be it.
Do I genuinely expect and at one level hope to be repeating those descriptors in the coming weeks and maybe months. I probably think I do.
|
|
