Has it ever got a team promoted in the first season when there have been drastic changes in personnel? Leicester and Forest spring to mind as examples of teams who've brought in loads of new players who haven't gelled and have consequently not played as a UNIT. Those two clubs also didn't get rid of most of their existing personnel, meaning they had enough bodies in the squad to rotate the team and keep things fresh - as it is for us, we're getting rid of most of our back-up and Bates says we want a squad of about 22 men, even though the divisional average is between 27 and 31. I really hope Warnock knows what he's doing, because he's going to have to work miracles to get this shell of a squad into shape now he's cut half of it out. I can envisage a load of new players not working in concert and getting knackered due to lack of reserves when injuries and suspensions start to rack up. Getting in there early with the pessimism, in other words. 'Wait and see'. Yeah, obviously, but it's still right to anticipate failure when it stares you in the face.
I understand at the moment it doesn't look great, but just about your point with 22 players - that's 2 for every position, plus we'll have the odd youth player. Not sure I really see the point in a squad of 27-31, too many players not getting a look in, eating up wages. Much like our squad was in the first place, only without any quality. If we have a squad of 22/23 quality players, I think we'll be fine. Obviously that's a big if.
Two for each position isn't always enough. Squad sizes of all the first-placed teams in this division: 04-05: Sunderland - 32 05-06: Reading - 25 06-07: Sunderland - 30 07-08: West Brom - 29 08-09: Wolves - 33 09-10: Newcastle - 34 10-11: QPR - 31 11-12: Reading - 27 Sorry, but there's no evidence whatsoever that such a puny squad will get us anywhere near promotion. Squad rotation really isn't something that can be baulked at.
Yeah but you're forgetting we don't have the money that all those sides did. I'd rather see a squad of 22 quality players than 32 average ones.
They end up equating to the same thing, because the quality players turn average with fatigue and unchanging team spirit. A larger squad means everyone's kept on their toes. And for what it's worth, even if we do get 22 players, no more than a third of them will be 'quality'.
Not if we actually rotate the squad! You can still comfortably rotate a squad of 22-25 players over a season. And although nobody's going to like hearing this, but, god forbid, you can even loan a player or two if the injuries or suspensions really do start to mount.
Why has no-one ever done it before then? Even thrifty Blackpool used 29 players in their promotion season. You can expect at least two of the squad will get long term injuries, then there's cup games, weeknight games, short-term injuries and suspensions to take into account. Obviously we can get some loans in to boost the numbers, but it's not ideal. And it means Warnock has to get nine players in if we're to even reach that Bates figure of 22 players. He says it'll be "lean and mean". I predict it will be a bunch of huffers and puffers once we're 30 games in, especially keeping the profile of your typical Warnock signing in mind. I'll look like a tit if this summer goes well, but there's no mistaking the signs are ****ty at this moment.
At present we have depth, that is **** in depth. I have always maintained with al things considered I would prefer to have a quality 18 players, you have your core 5-6 who are first down on the team sheet and then 12 players fighting for the remaining places which also gives you some decent options on the bench. Then you throw in a 3-4 youth players for a bit of experience when they are ready. Nowhere in your team should you have someone on loan, what is the point in 4 loan players taking the place of contracted ones draining away a wage. When and if suspensions and injuries hit then you bring in 2-3 loan players over the course of the season. Look at the total appearances this season for Bruce, O'Brien, Nunez, Forssell, Mika, Sam, Paynter, Bromby
Reading did it with 25 according to your facts, and 27 this season, including Roberts and Mullins on loan (not sure if they had any more loans, that's just off the top of my head) So it can be done with 25. If you have 2 players for every position, then Pugh and another utility player (for lack of ideas currently, someone like Halford from Pompey) I don't see why it can't be done! If our youth team is still producing players, they can be given a chance too if absolutely necessary. I don't think all the players on the transfer list will go. I can see Clayton staying, and I'm not sure anyone will come in for Nunez, so they both might stay. Still need to sign about 10 more players, but I'll see how it goes with Warnock. Not doubting the signs aren't great, but I trust Warnock and I don't want to start panicing about next season when we haven't even had a week since the last one ended.
Clayton won't stay, he is out of contract in 12 months and the club won't be short of offers for him.
Apparently we won't give Clayton the contract he wants, but Warnock says he's happy for him to stay, as he's only selling if the offer is right. If we get a good sum for him, I'd sell and replace anyway tbh
As you mention Leicester, thought I would point out that we had to bring in loads of players at the beginning of last season, as previously we had so many loan players who returned to their own club. Unfortunately, we had a manager who bought too many central midfielders and spent a fortune on one player who thought he was bigger than the club. Dont think Colin will make the same mistakes that Sven did. Wish you luck with your overhaul. Shame that Ken Bates aint on the unretained list. Oh by the way - if u wanna swop Beckford and half a mill for Snoddy, I for one would do the deal. Surprised at Clayton - has looked decent on the televised games I have seen
Just a thought - if we're having a clearout of players, does that mean that Millwall are going to have one too, so they can take all our rejects off our hands?
Clayton aside, are there any players people are surprised we're letting go? Though I like Nunez, I think he's a luxury player and we can ill afford those at the moment. I'm sad about Bruce, feel he never really got a good opportunity to show his stuff but Ive heard he's one of the top earners. Not really fussed about the rest tbh.
I'm sick of people talking about us "not having" money. We have the money, we refuse to spend it, and we won't get promoted if, as it seems, Bates hasn't changed his ideas after all.
What's worse is that bates squad size of 22-23 means we only have space for 2-3 new players, and that's on the assumption we sell all our transfer listed players and keep hold of Snodgrass.
