Too many players?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
N

NCFC Dorset Branch

Active Member
Aug 21, 2011
682
95
28
The sunny south coast
It isn't just because I'm old and remember when teams went through a whole season using only 12 players, I do genuinely wonder whether the size of modern squads actually causes more problems than they solve.

Although on the face of it there is increased flexibility over systems and player rotation, it does also strike me that managers take two thirds of the season to work out their best team and confuse the hell out of the players by trying to play a different system every other week.

Looking at our squad, I make it that we have 11 midfielders, rising to 12 with the expected arrival of Dorrans. Of those 12, I think it's fair to say that with the possible exception of Josh Murphy each and every one of them would expect to be playing in the starting eleven.

So, given we can realistically play a maximum of 5 of them, do we really need 12 to chose from? Yes, I know, substitutes, injuries, loss of form etc BUT it still seems that we have too many bloody players!

Same applies to strikers - 4 vying for one place. Central defenders? 6 vying for 2 places.
 
Probably true. The enlarged modern squads may reduce the value of the traditional utility player and also hinder the development of the lads coming through the ranks. No need to give the youngsters a chance when you have two seasoned pros in each position.

I do think that we have struggled a bit this season with neither Neil knowing what our best 11 is. Hopefully Alec will have the necessary clarity to work out how best to utilise our players and we can kick on.
 
It may sound a lot, but I still think you ideally need two in each position, which at the very least means 8 defenders, 8 or possibly 10 midfielders, and at least two or three strikers. Lots of heads to keep happy, but that is the way of the game these days, that´s not to say that some of those can´t be youngsters coming through, like McGrandles and Murphy, something that A. Neil has been used to, up at Hamilton.
 
I didn't comment because I agree and'm trying not to be to negative (apparently its an issue I have). We seem to have plenty of players but no cohesive team. I would say that we need to get r.id of some deadwood (i.e. Hoolahan) and we need to either give some of the youngsters (Murphy, McGrandles) a go in the team or put them out on loan. I think Neil arrived too late to have a clear out in the January window. We'll have to wait until the loan window opens. I suspect a few will go out on loan.
 
We do have a silly amount of CB's we brought in Miquel who hasn't been tried yet Bennet is bloody unlucky with injuries Hooiveld was **** Cueller started well but is slow and loves a pen Turner seems shot so we play Rusty and recalled Bassong which looks like the pairing now.
We need 8 to 10 midfielders so 12 means we have back up , the Belgian has been injured O'Neil was a free and Hoolahan is passed his best .
Bradders had been excellent Howson hit and miss Tettey also and was out injured Josh isn't ready Redmond is getting better so 2 new recruits to compete with Howson should be interesting.
 
I don't think we have too many players at all if I'm being honest, particularly in the hustle and bustle of a 46 game championship season. We've had a hell of a lot of injuries this season and I don't remember a single instance of us having a fully fit squad available for selection.
For the Brentford game for example we were so short of central midfielders we were forced to play Whitaker there - and then lots of people had meltdowns and decided that our season was over, despite the fact we had Tettey, Howson, Gladys and O'Neil to come back in when fit and available. I'm just waiting for some of our rivals with smaller squads to start picking up injuries to key players so we can take advantage of the extra resources we have at our disposal.
 
Indeed they have, though it hasn't done them much good as they've only won one of those - and that was at home to koo pee arr, and everyone wins that game this season.
 
Sorry Dorset, I have had that feeling in the past too and wondered but I am sure ot is nothing personal. It is true that squads have grown to a ridiculous proportion in the modern age and invariably now a good percentage are loaned out to other clubs which I think raises other questions such as potential manipulation of the league. Chelsea's squad was massive a couple of seasons ago and really should not be allowed in my view for the above reason.
I remember well the Liverpool team of the 80's and the Leeds team of the 70's and you are quite right in that they had pretty much the same 11 or 12 every week and that included a 42 game league, domestic cups and whatever European competition they were in. The only difference was that the European Cups were knock-outs over two legs rather than the league system they have today. The argument of more games is therefore not relevant, how come modern players get injured more regularly? Is it the footwear?
The only difference is the number of overseas players today and like now a whole raft go away for a month to the African Cup of Nationsand then there is the exodus for International Friendlies. It is a personal hatred to see squad numbers increasingly edging nearer to three figures - imagine wearing 106!!
I did prefer the old 1 - 11 and substitutes should also be limited to 2 including a goalkeeper. I feel better for getting all that off my chest.
 
THURNBY YELLOW said:
Sorry Dorset, I have had that feeling in the past too and wondered but I am sure ot is nothing personal. It is true that squads have grown to a ridiculous proportion in the modern age and invariably now a good percentage are loaned out to other clubs which I think raises other questions such as potential manipulation of the league. Chelsea's squad was massive a couple of seasons ago and really should not be allowed in my view for the above reason.
I remember well the Liverpool team of the 80's and the Leeds team of the 70's and you are quite right in that they had pretty much the same 11 or 12 every week and that included a 42 game league, domestic cups and whatever European competition they were in. The only difference was that the European Cups were knock-outs over two legs rather than the league system they have today. The argument of more games is therefore not relevant, how come modern players get injured more regularly? Is it the footwear?
The only difference is the number of overseas players today and like now a whole raft go away for a month to the African Cup of Nationsand then there is the exodus for International Friendlies. It is a personal hatred to see squad numbers increasingly edging nearer to three figures - imagine wearing 106!!
I did prefer the old 1 - 11 and substitutes should also be limited to 2 including a goalkeeper. I feel better for getting all that off my chest.
Click to expand...
If teams were only allowed 2 subs including a keeper there would be examples of players getting targeted for example we play Jerome up front alone v Blackpool , If he was taken out with a horrible crunching tackle even if the culprit was sent off the 1 outfield player would have to be a striker that replaced the injured Jerome and that would be a huge gamble for the manager as to who that 1 player would be.
Not many games would finish with 11 v 11 and injured players would be forced to stay on .
 
SUPERNORWICH 23 said:
If teams were only allowed 2 subs including a keeper there would be examples of players getting targeted for example we play Jerome up front alone v Blackpool , If he was taken out with a horrible crunching tackle even if the culprit was sent off the 1 outfield player would have to be a striker that replaced the injured Jerome and that would be a huge gamble for the manager as to who that 1 player would be.
Not many games would finish with 11 v 11 and injured players would be forced to stay on .
Click to expand...
Point taken 23 but how did they cope in the old days? Then there was only 1 sub and yet I do not recall there being many games finishing with 9 v 10 or at least fewer than the full complement as you suggest.
 
A good example this season is turner, he played every game for the first half or so and looked very good, then pretty good, then clearly in need of a rest.
For whatever reason the game is harder now, I think its the increase in pace and greater focus on fitness.
When everyone played 12 or 13 players a season the result was probably that by the end they were all tired so it balances out. It only takes one team increasing squad size to gain a fitness advantage before everyone has too.
 
Not sure I agree with you Bath when you say that the game is harder now!

It was far more physical back in the 70s & 80s and the pitches were mud baths by February/March making it even more difficult for the players. Having to run through heavy boggy ground for 90 minutes certainly sapped their fitness and injuries were far more common.

In 1980/81 we only used 14 players for the whole season and we were involved in 3 cup competitions as well as the league! The game is far easier these days with manicured pitches and the squad rotation that clubs have these days!
 
FA Cup Replays were played 2 days afterwards and I remember that we played Leeds in the 5th Round 3 times in 5 days! This would be unthinkable nowadays.
 
THURNBY YELLOW said:
Sorry Dorset, I have had that feeling in the past too and wondered but I am sure ot is nothing personal. It is true that squads have grown to a ridiculous proportion in the modern age and invariably now a good percentage are loaned out to other clubs which I think raises other questions such as potential manipulation of the league. Chelsea's squad was massive a couple of seasons ago and really should not be allowed in my view for the above reason.
I remember well the Liverpool team of the 80's and the Leeds team of the 70's and you are quite right in that they had pretty much the same 11 or 12 every week and that included a 42 game league, domestic cups and whatever European competition they were in. The only difference was that the European Cups were knock-outs over two legs rather than the league system they have today. The argument of more games is therefore not relevant, how come modern players get injured more regularly? Is it the footwear?
The only difference is the number of overseas players today and like now a whole raft go away for a month to the African Cup of Nationsand then there is the exodus for International Friendlies. It is a personal hatred to see squad numbers increasingly edging nearer to three figures - imagine wearing 106!!
I did prefer the old 1 - 11 and substitutes should also be limited to 2 including a goalkeeper. I feel better for getting all that off my chest.
Click to expand...

1. Gary Sprake
2. Paul Reaney
3. Terry Cooper
4. Billy Bremner
5. Norman (Bite yer legs) Hunter
6. Paul Madeley
7. Peter Lorimer
8. Allan Clarke
9. Mick Jones
10. Johnny Giles
11. Eddie Gray

12. Mick Bates

........and Thurnby I can assure you I didn't use Google, even after all these years I still remember that Leeds side <ok>
 
On a slightly different point I was amazed to find out that Ian Callaghan made 857 Appearances for Liverpool that is just incredible! Mick Mills made over 650 for us but how often these days would you have a player make that number of appearances for just one club? Steven Gerrard has just topped 700, Jamie Carragher, Gary Neville and then there's Giggs obviously but I cant think of many more 1 club men!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back