General 2019/20 First Team Squad

[Sarge]

more like a jazz musician

..... niiice

 

[bazzer9461]

 

[Steve McAvoy]

Acknowledging that Sam may not be the answer for all time, it does seem to me there is considerable evidence that he has a really determined character who likely is a positive influence in the squad, not bad qualities when young are trying influence younger players. Added to that last season was his first sustained period of first team football, and frankly he did well, in my view. He ain’t George Baldock but seems to be rock solid professional; I hope he continues to improve with us.

 

[AbbeyOx]

correct me if i’m wrong but wasn’t last season his longest continuous run in the team? he’s only going to improve so as others have said it’s always good to have the best player in their position but would be wiser to use remaining budget for the striker and cb

 

[Didcot Yellow]

Kevin Berkoe the new U23 player is back up to Ruffs.

thought the U23's were still works in progress, would rather have someone of first team quality ready to step in, god forbid if ruffles were to get injured, I wouldnt want to rely on an U23 alone to cover a first team position, Id rather have someone ready to cover him who is already in and around the first team

 

[RCYellowRC]

thought the U23's were still works in progress, would rather have someone of first team quality ready to step in, god forbid if ruffles were to get injured, I wouldnt want to rely on an U23 alone to cover a first team position, Id rather have someone ready to cover him who is already in and around the first team

What an awful mentality to have. You cant have a first team player in every position. We're a league 1 team not Premiership we dont have the finances for that. I'd rather quality over quantity of transfers.

 

[DavidB]

thought the U23's were still works in progress, would rather have someone of first team quality ready to step in, god forbid if ruffles were to get injured, I wouldnt want to rely on an U23 alone to cover a first team position, Id rather have someone ready to cover him who is already in and around the first team

We all would, but why would some half decent full-back want to come to us and play second fiddle to Josh. Spend the money where it’s really needed. If the under 23s are good enough, give them a chance.

 

[yellowbow]

What an awful mentality to have. You cant have a first team player in every position. We're a league 1 team not Premiership we dont have the finances for that. I'd rather quality over quantity of transfers.

I think ‘awful mentality’ is a bit harsh. I can see both sides to the argument. In an ideal world it would be great to have experienced cover for all areas but, as you say, our budget won’t allow for that. On the other hand if we’re in a position where we need to win games at the end of the season for a chance of promotion/fight off relegation, is it fair to have to rely on an inexperienced 17 year old if Ruffs gets injured? I would hope that this is where the recruitment department earn their corn and they can say to KR ‘if he’s needed he’s ready’. Otherwise the scenario is unfair on everyone.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

What an awful mentality to have. You cant have a first team player in every position. We're a league 1 team not Premiership we dont have the finances for that. I'd rather quality over quantity of transfers.

This is where you're completely wrong. 22 senior professional footballers is not excessive nor unaffordable. We managed it just fine for many seasons under Chris Wilder in both the Conference and League Two, with far smaller budgets than we have now.

The average League One salary is around £3,000 per week. 22 players on exactly this wage is under £3.5m per year, which is around what we spent last season and FAR less than Clotet blew the season before. Or you could have 11 players on £3,500 per week, meaning they'd be above average for the division, and have another 11 on £2,000 per week which would mean they're top quality League Two players (most of whom are more than able to do a job at L1 level), and that would then equate to around £3.15m per year. That would be the smallest budget we've had since we got back into L1 three years ago. There are numerous combinations in between these examples that allow you to get to 22 senior players, of at least adequate quality, within a perfectly sensible budget. Hell, numerous teams in L1 with crowds half the size of ours, and significantly smaller budgets, have two players for each position every year. A good few in L2 can boast the same.

I don't personally care what precise makeup the squad has, so long as it's sufficient in quality with some realistic depth and an acceptable level of cover, but I'm keen to know at what point this notion of having two players for each position became an outrageous luxury. We've got more than 22 players on professional contracts this very moment as it is, and I don't think you'd find anyone who thinks we don't still need three or four more at least.

 

[Marked Ox]

thought the U23's were still works in progress, would rather have someone of first team quality ready to step in, god forbid if ruffles were to get injured, I wouldnt want to rely on an U23 alone to cover a first team position, Id rather have someone ready to cover him who is already in and around the first team

We haven't seen him play so he maybe is ready for the 1st team. KR seems to think he maybe ready by making him a back up. KR will also know where the other cover player, Michael Elechi is at as well.

The recruitment/scouting team have seen Berkoe though and I wouldn't be surprised if KR hasn't watched a game of his, or at the least a load of video coverage to make his judgement on.

 

[Scotchegg]

Players develop, teams evolve. A year ago some were saying that Whyte was for the under 23's, Baptiste was only a kid, Long would never make it, and few had heard of Lopes, Spasov and Jones. Even Ruffels was a midfielder who had covered at left back when needed, but had now established himself in that position.

So whilst we don't want to go into the season without appropriate cover, who knows when an opportunity arises and who might grab that with both hands.

Football isn't about putting your perfect 11 on a whiteboard and never changing. It's about having plans a, b and c, adapting to each situation, developing who you have and taking opportunities when they come your way.

Additional right backs, left backs, keepers etc are all great, but not if that means cutting back on positions we really do need.

 

[werthersoriginal]

This is where you're completely wrong. 22 senior professional footballers is not excessive nor unaffordable. We managed it just fine for many seasons under Chris Wilder in both the Conference and League Two, with far smaller budgets than we have now.

The average League One salary is around £3,000 per week. 22 players on exactly this wage is under £3.5m per year, which is around what we spent last season and FAR less than Clotet blew the season before. Or you could have 11 players on £3,500 per week, meaning they'd be above average for the division, and have another 11 on £2,000 per week which would mean they're top quality League Two players (most of whom are more than able to do a job at L1 level), and that would then equate to around £3.15m per year. That would be the smallest budget we've had since we got back into L1 three years ago. There are numerous combinations in between these examples that allow you to get to 22 senior players, of at least adequate quality, within a perfectly sensible budget. Hell, numerous teams in L1 with crowds half the size of ours, and significantly smaller budgets, have two players for each position every year. A good few in L2 can boast the same.

I don't personally care what precise makeup the squad has, so long as it's sufficient in quality with some realistic depth and an acceptable level of cover, but I'm keen to know at what point this notion of having two players for each position became an outrageous luxury. We've got more than 22 players on professional contracts this very moment as it is, and I don't think you'd find anyone who thinks we don't still need three or four more at least.

We seem to have a policy of going for good quality first choice players with youngsters as backup, rather than signing ‘good solid pros ‘ from Crewe or Wycombe to fill out the squad. Whether this is the right policy I don’t know, it does leave you vulnerable to injury but means we’ve got real quality in midfield

 

[Didcot Yellow]

What an awful mentality to have. You cant have a first team player in every position. We're a league 1 team not Premiership we dont have the finances for that. I'd rather quality over quantity of transfers.

Arent you lovely.

Although its a luxury to have one player per position, its nice to have a squad where there are enough players who can if needed cover every position, something I think we should strive to, I dont want to have players to cover every position twice, just that we have players that mean we enough players where if a first team player gets injured that there is another player to cover it, something we dont really have at LB (I think it is the only position where there is not one player that can cover it at the moment), I dont want to rely on an under 23, what happens if (god forbid) Ruffels were to pick up a long term injury, you'd really want to then rely on an U23 to start and risk having no cover left. I wouldnt want us to spend much money on the person, but I think it would help fill out the squad.

Not really such an awful mentality

 

[Neville60]

Who makes the decision as to when a u23 player is ready to step up? Who decides when a player needs a rest because of fatigue or a knock during a game? Who watches or gets feedback on available, affordable players and by whom? Are these people competent and experienced to make these decisions, or should they be led by the fans? How do u23 feel when they have been told they are good enough to cover a position when called upon? How would they feel when told by (so called) supporters you're not ready to play first team football even though all the evidence during their development demonstrates the opposite? We as supporters have to rely on the judgment of the people who are in charge and we also need to encourage them to give these capable young, developed and developing player an opportunity to prove they are.

 

[Thomas/Brock/Jones]

Arent you lovely.

Although its a luxury to have one player per position, its nice to have a squad where there are enough players who can if needed cover every position, something I think we should strive to, I dont want to have players to cover every position twice, just that we have players that mean we enough players where if a first team player gets injured that there is another player to cover it, something we dont really have at LB (I think it is the only position where there is not one player that can cover it at the moment), I dont want to rely on an under 23, what happens if (god forbid) Ruffels were to pick up a long term injury, you'd really want to then rely on an U23 to start and risk having no cover left. I wouldnt want us to spend much money on the person, but I think it would help fill out the squad.

Not really such an awful mentality

I think if we were relying on the youth team which is under 18's then yes but u23 the whole point is that they are there to step up . If not might as well scrap it as they will never be ready

 

[nick68]

I have no issue with using the u23's to fill out the first team squad, that's if they're good enough and ready (and more importantly won't harm their development). I don't really care what the budget is you don't have to spend it all if you believe your squad is good enough and/or can develop players for longer term gain. Give me youngsters over older players who are happy to take a wage. Many on here would have discarded Nico Jones as not ready and/or too young but he fully justified the management team's judgement and faith in his ability. As for Sam Long i have no issues with him being first choice RB deserves the chance after such a wretched time with injuries, he can also cover LB if needed.

 

[Didcot Yellow]

I think if we were relying on the youth team which is under 18's then yes but u23 the whole point is that they are there to step up . If not might as well scrap it as they will never be ready

If Ruffles were to get a long term injury early on in the season would you be happy with an U23 covering LB? It would be unlikely that at that point in time they would be ready, towards the end of the season the fine, but to go into the start of the season with no cover than long (who will be preoccupied at RB) is not something I'd do. You don't go into the start of a season where if one person gets injured you have to rely on an U23

 

[beyondthefourth]

If Ruffles were to get a long term injury early on in the season would you be happy with an U23 covering LB? It would be unlikely that at that point in time they would be ready, towards the end of the season the fine, but to go into the start of the season with no cover than long (who will be preoccupied at RB) is not something I'd do. You don't go into the start of a season where if one person gets injured you have to rely on an U23

Not to mention that Josh only has half a season under his belt of having the LB position locked down.

 

[Marked Ox]

If Ruffles were to get a long term injury early on in the season would you be happy with an U23 covering LB? It would be unlikely that at that point in time they would be ready, towards the end of the season the fine, but to go into the start of the season with no cover than long (who will be preoccupied at RB) is not something I'd do. You don't go into the start of a season where if one person gets injured you have to rely on an U23

Well it seems KR disagrees with you. He and the recruitment team must think Berkoe is ready based on KR's comments. These players would never play based on your approach.

 

[Foley]

If Ruffles were to get a long term injury early on in the season would you be happy with an U23 covering LB? It would be unlikely that at that point in time they would be ready, towards the end of the season the fine, but to go into the start of the season with no cover than long (who will be preoccupied at RB) is not something I'd do. You don't go into the start of a season where if one person gets injured you have to rely on an U23

If we sign a right back which seems likely then Long can cover right back and left back.
We have 2 young players in the U23s who presumably the management team could cover for Ruffels.
I guess that the point of the U23s is to give them a chance. As somebody else suggested we are not relying on youth team players as back up but good players from the U23s.
I get your point but it sounds like the management team have decided that there will be no further left backs (I guess that if Garbutt returns he will come as a left sided midfield player who can play left back if we have no other choice!)