Can scarcely remember a game where we were comfortable. That is what the problem is. Points and results are too important...I'd love to 5-0 up and cruising....never happened this season.
There's no guarantee that playing a lower league opponent, in the cup, will give you an easy game, so should you have a scenario, like at Sheffield United last season, where the first 11 didn't turn up, having a bench full of youth players might not be the best option. However, there should always be a case for having 1 sub, of the 7, being an academy player.
Good point, well made, but there have been times this season where our bench has had 2 or 3 defenders (caulker, Yoshida, Martina). Do we need all of them? why not keep a Seager/hesketh/reed on the bench just in case. I believe that Koeman is just trying to win games, but I can see why people are asking the question.
I don't see why people are asking the question. It's silly every single time. I couldn't care less what happens to Caulker's spot in the bench. Dude never plays. If you're a promising young player who at this point is only good enough to merit Caulker minutes, then you should be on loan somewhere. Even playing U21 is better than just sitting on the bench. Which of our young players can we find some minutes for where they actually PLAY in games? To me, Reed should be playing more. But it would cost JWP some minutes, and Davis a lot of minutes. I'm okay with that, not sure how many others are. If our defense stabilizes a bit, then we can maybe start playing Targett. That's about it.
this was in todays echo. koemqn has opened up the possibility of some of the youngsters making loan moves to gain experience. "we have some young players, maybe January can mean they start playing (on loan)" "jack Stephens is back from middlesborough, he wasn't playing and then ok, why on loan if you don't play?" "its better to come back" sounds to me like Stephens will be staying put!
