What with six players out through injury for the game v Spurs. Do you really think that a squad of 25 players is enough to sustain a realistic premiership campaign? Especially for a club of our size. This is of course not countng suspensions forthcoming. Perhaps 30 is more appropriate.
It makes no odds that we are a small club because the number is the same Wait to the Africa cup of Nations and we could be in real trouble
Maybe we should introduce ... 'Test Football'... a game played over a whole day... say six hours! You can bring on as many subs as you want and re-introduce players?
Think most other PL clubs have stronger under 21's than us, so their boat is better stocked. Read that we probably will have 7 outfield players out Sunday. Means we will have only 5 outfield players in the 25 to put on the Bench if I subtract right. If Hill, and both BZ and Cisse start, probably no recognised defenders or strikers from the 25 will be left to put on the Bench.
Sould operate like the American football system where a player can be on the injured list, and out of the 25 until fit, and a player drafted in as cover for the period. Would allow youth or fringe plays opportunities to come into the squad and gain valuable first team experience for a period until first choice player is fit again.
That's a great idea. We could involve two whole villages, with the aim being to carry an inflated pigs bladder across the opponents line through any means at your disposal.
How about introducing weapons and armour, give the Chairman a crown, give the captain a horse too. Would probably bring about injuries, but the villagers can use sticks and forks. The richer villages can have swords and axes. But ŵe could always buy in other villagers and give them better huts and weapons to give an edge of superiority.
This is now underlining the fragility of the policy of signing players with a history of injuries. We just have to live with it and one or two youngsters may be on the bench tomorrow...
I don't see why in the case of a long term injury such as Johnson's, you shouldn't be able to replace them for the season. There could be a set limit for the maximum number of players that could be replaced, say 3 or 5 per season.
25 is easily enough. Most teams dont even reach that limit and supplement it with younger players. Thats what we get for buying old and injury prone players instead of young ones.
A good academy would give us a supply of young players who would be praying for the African Cup, so they can get in and hold down a place and not let the older African player get back in when he returns. We have one or two who might be ready for that in Jan...
Which would effectively mean a 28-30 man squad if you could swap other players in. 25 should be easily enough to get you through 4 months though (you can reset and make as many changes in January). For good depth you'd aim to have 2 players for each position (22), a 3rd keeper, and then two players who allow you to change the style of play, and you'd be happy with any of those starting for a run of games. Then you've got as many players as you want who were born before 1st January 1991 (might even be 1990) to come in for the odd game.
I'm afraid I'm not with ye there Hoopsy. I hate to say it but I'm with Flyer on this one. If you sign crocks and sick-notes, you deserve the punishment. There's ample allowances for filling your squad with young and fit players. Hughes decided to fill the ranks with auld-fellas and that's the risk you take. (P.S. Betty, you're talkin' sense old girl.)
Restrictions (handicaps) are often what makes sport so interesting. Up to managers to plan accordingly and then pray hard! No problem with squads capped to 25. Agree about the need for young players to gain a bit of advantage. Shame we're on catch-up in this area - price we pay for past mismanagement.
I'm sure no manager intentionally signs players that will get injured. OK, I will accept that Johnson has season ticket to his GP so maybe that was a mistake.
