I would remove Butterfield - he was clearly bought with a view to his potential - and possibly Ayala for the same reason. Otherwise agree, so my list (with no particular definition): Bunn Nash Fox Whittaker E Bennett Becchio and possibly Ayala.
I'll try to make myself clearer: 1) The aim is to have a squad of 25 players any of whom can come into the side at any time without detriment to the team's performance on the pitch. 2) If the 25-man squad falls short of that ideal, it will contain players who are not up to the standard set by 1) and those players will be earmarked for replacement by others who do meet the standard. 3) Those players who do not meet the standard, and who are either in the 25-man squad or additional to it but not Under-21, are the "squaddies" ("squad players") earmarked for replacement by release or transfer. Of course, 1) is an aim which only a mega-rich club is likely to attain short-term; for us and others it is something to build towards. So we will almost certainly always have squad players in our 25-man squad, and it is unlikely that we would ever have the resources to upgrade all of them in a single transfer window. The real point is that talk about a "first choice eleven", "reserves" and "squad players" (in the old sense of players way down the pecking order who you'd select only when there's no-one else) is out-dated and unhelpful. The entire 25-man squad should be "first choice" and rotation something we expect as a matter of course.
I would add that the squad player is not good enough in any one particualr position to earn a start but is capable of covering say a couple of possible options if required, so an element of versatility is within the job description.
A player can be a utility player but far from a mere squad player, for example Man Utd's Jones who can play CB, CM, RB, AM without detriment to the perfomance of the team. Another would be James Milner who is not a mere squad player at Man City but can play effectively in different positions. Utility players can enhance the 25-man squad by adding versatility to quality; "squad" players lower the overall quality.
That's funny, I'd say Milner was a squad player at City because, even though he probably started more games than not, he would really necessarily be in your ideal eleven and certainly not one of the first names on the team sheet... Blurred lines
No, not blurred lines so much as whether it remains appropriate to persist in a particular way of thinking/vocabulary or whether changes in the nature of the league/competition and financial landscape require change. Over the last few years, the idea of squad rotation has slowly but surely become accepted by players, fans and media at least with regard to clubs competing at the very top including in Europe. You regard Milner as a squad player because you still think of Man City as having an "ideal eleven" and players whose names are always "first on the team sheet". If you take the idea of squad rotation seriouly on the other hand, that way of thinking about your players becomes irrelevant. Kemp didn't say why he raised this question in the first place, but I'm guessing this was maybe what he had in mind.
I would call any player who isn't going to start many matches as a squad player, 2nd and 3rd choice keepers are a prime example of players that wouldn't normally start many if any games but are there to fill in if needed. they to me are squad players.
I think you're over-analysing! I think Milner's a "squad player" simply because I don't think he's as good as the other players in his position at City. Milner started 19 games and was subbed on in 7 last season (admittedly he seems to have missed 2 matches through injury), which I think highlights the fact that he is not first choice, but is a rotation candidate. I appreciate that there is now a necessity to rotate, but it is simply inevitable that some players will be better than others - it is true that the Agueros of this world need resting and rotating, replaced by players who are ideally only a slight step down, but they are a step down nonetheless.
Good discussion this, but I think there is another element to consider and that is tactical squad choice. Thus CH might want to play Fer and Johnson against top teams or those with strong attacking options up the middle, but Fer and Howson when City need a more attacking mid-field, especially at home. The key distinction is whether there is strong or equal competition for each position. It's a measure of City's development that this is now true of most positions in the squad. Even where this isn't true at the moment, as with Snodgrass and Bennett, Bennett still offers another tactical option as a traditional winger, especially when coming on as a sub. Thus he isn't a squad player for me. The same could be said for OLsson and Garrido, where the former offers a 'wing-back' option against the more orthodox FB play of the other. CH had been very clever at creating these options as he builds the squad, augmented by the fact that players like Fer, Redmond and Howson can play in more than one position. On this basis, I'd say that the squad players would be Bunn, Nash, Ayala (though he is young for a CB and could develop), Fox (if he stays). For me, Becchio offers a different option up front, and therefore, like Bennett isn't a squad player. Except for Holt and Jackson, all the players who left this summer were squad players and that is another measure of how much the squad has developed.
This ^^ Also I don't understand how anyone could say Elliott Bennett or Becchio aren't squad players? For me that's exactly what they are, I don't envisage a time when either will be in the starting line-up for any tactical reason because they offer a "different option", and surely any start they get would be due to injuries/suspensions in those positions. I expect them both to feature in the match day squads and on the bench however, something I think will be unlikely for Ayala or Fox this season - again unless we get hit by a spate of injuries.
He did indeed, however I suspect had Pilks not picked up an injury then he wouldn't have done - oh, and unless I'm very much mistaken you're not Chris Hootun I'd start Redmond before him against Everton myself without question. Sounds like he's had an excellent pre-season and is champing at the bit so I think it would be a mistake not to harness this from the first kick-off
Yeah, fair enough bor. At the moment I think I'm of the feeling that Redmond is still a bit young and raw so I'd want to ease him into the season to begin with. You are correct though that I would have chosen Pilks over E.Bennett had he been available.
To be fair, Bennett had chances on the left last season and was nowhere near as effective as when he plays on he right. Which is why I'd start with Redmond, as he's been excellent in pre season and would give Séamus Coleman or whoever a torrid afternoon
Spot on, and well put. Imagine our strike options were RvW, Hooper, Quagliarella (leaving Becchio out of it for the moment). I would hesitate to say that one of those three if fit would automatically be "first on the team sheet", or in a "first choice eleven". The kinds of reason for choosing one rather than another would (barring injuries, loss of form or some extraneous factor) be purely tactical on a match by match basis (which is what I think Mancini aimed to do, not just with his strikers but his defence and midfield also). Would we necessarily say that one of RvW, Hooper, Quagliarella is a step above the other two, or that one of the trio is a step down from the other two? I don't think so (though we have seen little of any of them so the question is currently theoretical). Re. Rob's comment that I am "over-analysing", I don't think you can over-analyse, at least when the object of it is to improve one's understanding of the game and our club in all their multifarious aspects (which is why I am on this forum in the first place; I'm certainly not on here just to learn about the idiosyncrasies or entrenched opinions of my fellow posters). The discussion is really about longer term objectives, but as Rick points out, it has application right now in terms of what CH is actually doing as he revamps our squad, and reinforces the idea that we have not only an intelligent and capable CEO, but also an intelligent manager who knows exactly what he is doing.
Go on Munky, where's the rest of your post? We need a bit of analysis here to help us understand how over-analysis is a mistake!
Do you? Do you really need it? Let me just say my day job (ie what I'm supposed to be doing right now ) is as an analyst so take it from me, from experience I know that you can definitely over-analyse! And obviously I don't speak on behalf of anyone else, but I personally don't feel the need to justifying everything I say to the nth degree, however I do think I usually make my point clear enough for others to understand
