SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
I would say you need around 18-21 first team team players then you have your youngsters on top and you should be ok.
How big does a squad need to be? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mary_Mungo_Midge
- Start date
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
True. A goodly element of what he writes makes sense though. The only other area I'd question, is that I don't believe Thorn would have had any involvement in the extended contracts for Baker and Bell. I'm sure this would have been a SISU decision made to protect their balance sheet
Stevec189
New Member
All I would say Willo is the players you have marked as experienced.
Dunn and Ireland - Not really for Ireland where has he played? Not sure how many seasons Dunn played first team at Northampton but none at Championship level
Clarke Hussey and Cameron cannot be said to be experienced - Hussey only started to make regular appearances this season and cameron only broke through having gained experience at Nuneaton Town! Clarke is only 20/21 and I would nt say he is experienced.
In Midfield I would say Deegan is not experienced at this level and it often shows
McDonald and O'Donovan are not experienced at this level - in fact I am not sure where O'Donvan has featured regularly in the first team? Happy to be educated!
It is not numbers we lack it is quality in depth.
Of our kids I think only Christie and Thomas have shown they have the potential to make it. Bigi started well but has lost his way which is a shame but we have seen it often before. Will be interesting to see what the next batch are like!
PUSB
Dunn and Ireland - Not really for Ireland where has he played? Not sure how many seasons Dunn played first team at Northampton but none at Championship level
Clarke Hussey and Cameron cannot be said to be experienced - Hussey only started to make regular appearances this season and cameron only broke through having gained experience at Nuneaton Town! Clarke is only 20/21 and I would nt say he is experienced.
In Midfield I would say Deegan is not experienced at this level and it often shows
McDonald and O'Donovan are not experienced at this level - in fact I am not sure where O'Donvan has featured regularly in the first team? Happy to be educated!
It is not numbers we lack it is quality in depth.
Of our kids I think only Christie and Thomas have shown they have the potential to make it. Bigi started well but has lost his way which is a shame but we have seen it often before. Will be interesting to see what the next batch are like!
PUSB
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
The Eastwood situation, given this context is even more frustrating. When you view the sparce nature of the squad in quite such clinical terms; it really focuses the mind on how reliant we are, and should be on a player with such natural skill, the biggest price-ticket in the squad, one of - if not the - highest earners, and at 28 theoretically in the peak form of his career.
Post-King, in an austere atmosphere of barely enough, we needed Eastwood to step up to the plate. The worst thing being he simply couldn't be bothered to
Post-King, in an austere atmosphere of barely enough, we needed Eastwood to step up to the plate. The worst thing being he simply couldn't be bothered to
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Wait so you are writing Bigi off after 10-15 games and only 17-18 years old? Gael is probably the most naturally gifted out of all the younger players and just needs to be managed correctly an definitely has shown he has the potential to make it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Coventry have used 30 players this season. This is about average for the league. Peterborough have used 25, Bristol City 29, Derby 31 etc. Birmingham have used 28. Yes this includes players with a couple of sub appearances but this also applies to the other clubs as well. Average is around 32. Doncaster have used 41 due to the loan nonsense they indulge in.
In terms of squad depth the physical numbers used in not that difference to other clubs. As stated on a previous thread I picked one club at random Derby and they have three teenagers regularly playing in their team and one 15 year old who has made 7 appearances.
The CableGuy
Well-Known Member
Subs for Forest:
Says it all really. Not for the first time this season, we were up against a team who had options on the bench to change the game, and they did so accordingly. We didn't.
- 21 Smith
- 33 Lynch
- 14 Greening
- 23 Blackstock
- 24 Findley
- 13 Dunn
- 37 Willis
- 07 Bell
- 32 Thomas
- 10 Eastwood
Says it all really. Not for the first time this season, we were up against a team who had options on the bench to change the game, and they did so accordingly. We didn't.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
When we play Watford, Peterborough, Derby, Doncaster etc. equilibrium will be more common also a very poor comparison bearing in mind Forest are the team on the worst run in the division which suggests the "names" are names and nothing much else. How many other games have Forest played when subs changed the game?
johnwillomagic
Well-Known Member
I was not stating our 30 was perfect by a long shot - but I think the problem in a sense lies in the senior players that make up the 30. Also "experience" does not always relate to minutes on the pitch entirely. Cameron & Clarke are not fledglings and have played enough minutes over the past couple of years not to be called "rookies".
Deegan is now racking up minutes as well & McDonald & Donovan have a lot of minutes under their belt allbeit granted at a lower level.....Baker & Bell also had lots of mins at this level.....many would argue perhaps too many!
I think 30 players is a resonable balance and 22 players of which 15/16 have this level experience and 5/6 have experience at lower level is not too bad, blood eight youngsters who may only geta few mins here or there bar injury crisis is not atrocious.
I take non league's point but once again you can only name 16 and you expect a few of the 30 to be injured at some point, just as you may expect some frustrated at lack of opportunity to go out on loan.
I do think having been to some recent games Thorn has chronically underused Eastwood......against Reading he was worth a gamble for 30 mins imo would have done more than Bell & Baker combined did that game. Forest he should have been on at half time I think.....not 89 mins when we are 2-0 down!! I understand why he is on the bench don't get me wrong but at least use him and gamble sometimes for 30 mins......I think the lack of risk on bringing Eastwood on has been Thorn's major downfall over past few weeks. I am a big fan of Platt but he was off boil against both Forest and Reading....Eastwood could have been an intersting swap....
Deegan is now racking up minutes as well & McDonald & Donovan have a lot of minutes under their belt allbeit granted at a lower level.....Baker & Bell also had lots of mins at this level.....many would argue perhaps too many!
I think 30 players is a resonable balance and 22 players of which 15/16 have this level experience and 5/6 have experience at lower level is not too bad, blood eight youngsters who may only geta few mins here or there bar injury crisis is not atrocious.
I take non league's point but once again you can only name 16 and you expect a few of the 30 to be injured at some point, just as you may expect some frustrated at lack of opportunity to go out on loan.
I do think having been to some recent games Thorn has chronically underused Eastwood......against Reading he was worth a gamble for 30 mins imo would have done more than Bell & Baker combined did that game. Forest he should have been on at half time I think.....not 89 mins when we are 2-0 down!! I understand why he is on the bench don't get me wrong but at least use him and gamble sometimes for 30 mins......I think the lack of risk on bringing Eastwood on has been Thorn's major downfall over past few weeks. I am a big fan of Platt but he was off boil against both Forest and Reading....Eastwood could have been an intersting swap....
