How big does a squad need to be? (1 Viewer)

I would say you need around 18-21 first team team players then you have your youngsters on top and you should be ok.

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

Well Freddie is too big...

Stevec189 said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

They all offer something different. I hope they all make it because in our plight we will need everyone of them either for their skill or the finance of their sale to see us survive.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

Let's try and keep this away from a Thorn bashing debate, shall we; but I was just wondering what the 'true' strength of our squad is?!?

The official CCFC site lists 32 current First Team squad players. One of these is Sky Blue Sam (although he might be worth a shout on current form - either as a player of manager before someone gets that one in!).

Wilson, ROD and McPake are out on loan - so if you take them away and factor in Sky Blue Sam until it's decided what his best role is - leaves 28 players.

Of the 28 players, Nimely and Norwood aren't ours and have only arrived in recent weeks in any case. So, a core of 26.

Of those 26, some players are either very young, or wholly untested at this level - these being Jordon Willis, Aaron Phillips, Joshua Ruffels, Geal Bigirimana, Lee Burge, Conor Thomas, Nathan Cameron, Cyrus Christie, Shaun Jeffers and Jordan Clarke. That's 10 youngsters.

As such, we have about 16 'seasoned professionals' - and I'm being very, very generous in that description given it includes Chris Hussey, Chris Dunn and Danny Ireland.

Struck me that we must be at least 3 or 4 players shy of what would be needed to compete; to compensate for injuries and loss of form over a season.

This isn't a thread meant to defend, or attack Thorn's stewardship - I hasten to add. I just wanted to truly understand what we had to play with, and frankly speaking was rather surprised at quite what a scant resource we have

Click to expand...

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.

Subs for Forest:

• 21 Smith
• 33 Lynch
• 14 Greening
• 23 Blackstock
• 24 Findley

Subs for City:

• 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.

The CableGuy said:

Subs for Forest:

• 21 Smith
• 33 Lynch
• 14 Greening
• 23 Blackstock
• 24 Findley

Subs for City:

• 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.

Click to expand...

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?

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....

So were not then - thanks