Current Player Kyle Edwards

[Foley]

A robust Browne and Edwards makes Oufc promotion contenders imo.

That’s how strongly I feel about their quality…but it’s not their quality in question is it!?

It’s exciting in a way but I’m not holding my breath.

The good thing could be that with Murphy and Dale playing so well and Tyler back fit, both Edwards and Browne can be used in short bursts.
It certainly adds an awful lot to the bench.

 

[WEYellow]

Our bench on Saturday was;

Eastwood
Leigh
Mceachran
Henry
Browne
Harris
Goodrham

Notable exclusions from that - Negru, Thorniley, Stevens, Mcguane

Who comes out for Edwards?! You'd think Mcguane and a defender would come in for Henry and JMc

 

[WuTang]

Our bench on Saturday was;

Eastwood
Leigh
Mceachran
Henry
Browne
Harris
Goodrham

Notable exclusions from that - Negru, Thorniley, Stevens, Mcguane

Who comes out for Edwards?!

Henry for Edwards?

 

[Osei Yaw]

Our bench on Saturday was;

Eastwood
Leigh
Mceachran
Henry
Browne
Harris
Goodrham

Notable exclusions from that - Negru, Thorniley, Stevens, Mcguane

Who comes out for Edwards?! You'd think Mcguane and a defender would come in for Henry and JMc

I'd like to say Henry, but in reality I think it's more likely to be Browne the moment he gets injured again.

 

[WEYellow]

I'd like to say Henry, but in reality I think it's more likely to be Browne the moment he gets injured again.

I think so too, case of either/or with those 2. To be fair, neither would replace Murphy/Dale on current form anyway.

 

[Yellow Mustard]

If Edwards is anywhere near as good as he was pre injury, he'll be our best attacking player.

If him and Browne had been fit and available for the whole season I think we'd be right in there, pushing autos. I think they're that important; even just psychologically-speaking. Their perceived threat that they have on the counter, and in 1 v 1s, shapes games. Gives an outlet. Stops the midfield being overrun.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

A robust Browne and Edwards makes Oufc promotion contenders imo.

That’s how strongly I feel about their quality…but it’s not their quality in question is it!?

It’s exciting in a way but I’m not holding my breath.

Both Browne and Edwards are 26. In their respective careers, Edwards has played 115 games and Browne 100 games. That's over the course of let's say 9 seasons (although it's nearly 10 really!). By my maths, and as an admittedly dodgy average!, that makes it about 11 or 12 games a season that you can rely on them to play. Given that there are 46 games in a league season (plus cup games of course), then you would need two Browne's and two Edwards' to fill that spot in the team. Of course that is a silly exaggeration, as they wouldn't have expected be to on the pitch all the time in their early years - but as a comparison both Brown and Brannagan (more robust?) are roughly the same age and have played twice as many games. Owen Dale (perhaps a better comparison as a wide player) is a year younger and has played 220 games or so.

If we can use Browne and Edwards to affect the outcome of this season, then great. Whether I'd be that keen on going into next season with both (or either) of them as a major part of our attacking threat is another matter entirely.

 

[Swaby39]

A robust Browne and Edwards makes Oufc promotion contenders imo.

That’s how strongly I feel about their quality…but it’s not their quality in question is it!?

It’s exciting in a way but I’m not holding my breath.

Both carry a fear factor that we only recently discovered with Owen Dale. I think he terrifies full backs and Murphy does too in flashes.

Browne has never had a consistent end product. He looked much better when moved to the right where his options were more limited - I.e. being on that side forces his hand and what will come naturally is getting at his full back and putting the ball in. I don’t think he’s got enough quality to play on the left cutting in.

Edwards is the better of the two. Better brain, better on both feet and less predictable. So playing off the left is ideal.

I’m not holding out much hope that their fitness will hold out but saying it does, having them in support to allow Dale and Murphy to play at full tilt from the start is certainly advantageous. Certainly in a play off run, it’s worth its weight in gold and let’s be frank, 3 of those 4 wingers are playing for their futures with us which should make it competitive for places and a positive for the team.

 

[Bigdwoolly]

Both Browne and Edwards are 26. In their respective careers, Edwards has played 115 games and Browne 100 games. That's over the course of let's say 9 seasons (although it's nearly 10 really!). By my maths, and as an admittedly dodgy average!, that makes it about 11 or 12 games a season that you can rely on them to play. Given that there are 46 games in a league season (plus cup games of course), then you would need two Browne's and two Edwards' to fill that spot in the team. Of course that is a silly exaggeration, as they wouldn't have expected be to on the pitch all the time in their early years - but as a comparison both Brown and Brannagan (more robust?) are roughly the same age and have played twice as many games. Owen Dale (perhaps a better comparison as a wide player) is a year younger and has played 220 games or so.

If we can use Browne and Edwards to affect the outcome of this season, then great. Whether I'd be that keen on going into next season with both (or either) of them as a major part of our attacking threat is another matter entirely.

I'm not sure about your stats - how many 16/17/18 years olds play regular league football? Call it 7 seasons and you're being fairer. On soccerbase, these are there appearance stats.

Browne - 93 appearances plus 44 subs = 137 games he's been selected. So approximately 20 games a season he's been "fit" for, if you assume fit means he gets on the pitch. There are probably other matches he was sub, but not put on, so he's probably been fit for more than 20 games a season.

Edwards - 57 apperances plus 89 subs = 146 games. Similar to Browne, but with a higher number of subs appearances.


So definitely a gamble, but not necessarily two 10 game a season players. You'd also hope at 26 they are at their peak, performance, but also in theory injury wise.

It's a big decision for the club what to do with these two (and Murphy -181 appearances plus 144 subs = 325 games, over 10 years)

 

[holdsteady]

I'm not sure about your stats - how many 16/17/18 years olds play regular league football? Call it 7 seasons and you're being fairer. On soccerbase, these are there appearance stats.

Browne - 93 appearances plus 44 subs = 137 games he's been selected. So approximately 20 games a season he's been "fit" for, if you assume fit means he gets on the pitch. There are probably other matches he was sub, but not put on, so he's probably been fit for more than 20 games a season.

Edwards - 57 apperances plus 89 subs = 146 games. Similar to Browne, but with a higher number of subs appearances.


So definitely a gamble, but not necessarily two 10 game a season players. You'd also hope at 26 they are at their peak, performance, but also in theory injury wise.

It's a big decision for the club what to do with these two (and Murphy -181 appearances plus 144 subs = 325 games, over 10 years)

Is it a big decision? We can’t go with 3 injury prone wingers again can we? At most one, so two have to go, maybe all 3.

I reckon Murphy might get an offer from a bigger club as he has turned it round a bit, we shouldn’t be competing with them for wages, if he doesn’t then see if we can get him in a deal that is cheaper for us.

Browne has been here long enough to make the decision that he should be someone else’s problem, we have taken enough risk with him.

If Murphy signs then we can’t risk Edwards, can’t have two of them, if he doesn’t and Edwards is available on a cheap deal then he can be the gamble if the manager thinks its worth it.

If none of them end up here it’s no great loss, the money save on them and Henry’s wage will allow us to bring in good replacements.

 

[tonyw]

Our bench on Saturday was;

Eastwood
Leigh
Mceachran
Henry
Browne
Harris
Goodrham

Notable exclusions from that - Negru, Thorniley, Stevens, Mcguane

Who comes out for Edwards?! You'd think Mcguane and a defender would come in for Henry and JMc

If everyone is fit (and we play the same starting XI as on Saturday) then I think the bench should be:

Eastwood
Leigh
McEachran
Goodrham
Browne
Edwards
Harris

Ton of attacking options (which, let's face it, is what you need off the bench). We're scrambling a bit if one of the CBs gets hurt, but I'm sure Greg Leigh could fill in there for part of a game in an emergency.

When you compare this to our bench against Bolton - Eastwood, Thorniley, Long, Bennett, Bodin, Henry, Goodwin - then there's just a little bit of improvement in terms of pace and attacking threat! Things looking up a little.......

 

[Mad Dog]

A robust Browne and Edwards

I’m afraid that doesn’t exist.

Not holding out much hope for either of these two playing a major part for us this season or beyond.

History has proven, by the time they get up to match fitness, they’ll be injured again.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

I'm not sure about your stats - how many 16/17/18 years olds play regular league football? Call it 7 seasons and you're being fairer. On soccerbase, these are there appearance stats.

Browne - 93 appearances plus 44 subs = 137 games he's been selected. So approximately 20 games a season he's been "fit" for, if you assume fit means he gets on the pitch. There are probably other matches he was sub, but not put on, so he's probably been fit for more than 20 games a season.

Edwards - 57 apperances plus 89 subs = 146 games. Similar to Browne, but with a higher number of subs appearances.


So definitely a gamble, but not necessarily two 10 game a season players. You'd also hope at 26 they are at their peak, performance, but also in theory injury wise.

It's a big decision for the club what to do with these two (and Murphy -181 appearances plus 144 subs = 325 games, over 10 years)

Well yes, I did say it was a silly exaggeration! The point is not in the raw numbers, but in the comparison to others of near enough the same age. They have played half as many games as them. Of course it is a presumption to say that they were injured for those missing games, they could have been off form, suspended or unluckily been at a club where there was a better (and fitter) player in front of them in the pecking order. But in these cases we know they have recurrent injuries.

Even if we take your stats (which are perfectly reasonable) and say each of them is fit for 20 games in a season, gambling on both of them would be reckless at best. One of them? Only if they were a backup to someone more likely to play the majority of games. And as you correctly say, add in Murphy (although I am not wholly clear on why he has not appeared more) and you have some real decisions to make. You'd hope we are tending away from the 'if we can get him fit...' players and towards those who you'd expect on past fitness and form to be starters much more often than not.

 

[Bigdwoolly]

Well yes, I did say it was a silly exaggeration! The point is not in the raw numbers, but in the comparison to others of near enough the same age. They have played half as many games as them. Of course it is a presumption to say that they were injured for those missing games, they could have been off form, suspended or unluckily been at a club where there was a better (and fitter) player in front of them in the pecking order. But in these cases we know they have recurrent injuries.

Even if we take your stats (which are perfectly reasonable) and say each of them is fit for 20 games in a season, gambling on both of them would be reckless at best. One of them? Only if they were a backup to someone more likely to play the majority of games. And as you correctly say, add in Murphy (although I am not wholly clear on why he has not appeared more) and you have some real decisions to make. You'd hope we are tending away from the 'if we can get him fit...' players and towards those who you'd expect on past fitness and form to be starters much more often than not.

Owen Dale - 124 apps (91 subs) in 6 seasons (he's 1 year younger than Browne/Edwards). So very similar stats to Murphy in terms of appearances.

You don't actually want a squad full of players who want/expect to be starters all the time, otherwise you'll quickly be left with some problems in the dressing room. I'd argue there could be a case for some "super-subs", particularly wingers in the squad. You can't expect Browne (I know less about why Edwards has only played 20 games a season) to start every game, because whenever he does, he gets injured. But perhaps there's a player there who can start occasionally and come on as a sub quite often.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

You don't actually want a squad full of players who want/expect to be starters all the time, otherwise you'll quickly be left with some problems in the dressing room.

I don't agree with this. We are constantly being told by managers at all levels that players in the starting XI need people who aren't starters to be pushing them for a place in order to keep standards up. It is the job of a manager to keep players happy whether they are in or out of the side - let's face it, we are a division three club with a relatively small squad, that job gets harder as you go up the leagues (more, better players!). The vast majority of our fit players will be in the side or on the bench.

Of course you may have some youngsters or players coming to the end of their careers who would not expect to start (although you'd still hope they would 'want' to!), but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about players who are repeatedly unavailable for extended periods because they are injured. In those cases you don' t even have the choice to use them as a supersub

 

[Bigdwoolly]

With 5 subs though, I think there could be a role for a player or two who can be managed through the season in terms of fitness. If you accept that you'd always subsitute all 3 attacking players every game, then I think you need 3 players for each of those positions to cover for inevitable injuries. Then I think you could make an argument that one of these 3 could be a specialist substitute - i.e. managed physically (so they're much less likely to get injured) and mentally so that they only need to play 30 minutes a game.
Not saying I'm right here, by the way, it's just a thought.

 

[Siho]

I remember watching an interview with Arsene Wenger, and the interviewer asked him if a player was unhappy to be on the bench instead of playing.

His response was that if a player was happy on the bench, he wouldn't be in the team at all.

 

[YellowsForLife]

does anyone actually know if/when hes back

 

[holdsteady]

With 5 subs though, I think there could be a role for a player or two who can be managed through the season in terms of fitness. If you accept that you'd always subsitute all 3 attacking players every game, then I think you need 3 players for each of those positions to cover for inevitable injuries. Then I think you could make an argument that one of these 3 could be a specialist substitute - i.e. managed physically (so they're much less likely to get injured) and mentally so that they only need to play 30 minutes a game.
Not saying I'm right here, by the way, it's just a thought.

How many 30 minutes of game time have we got out of Browne and Edwards this season? they just haven't been available enough, you can't manage game time when its zero.

 

[Bigdwoolly]

I remember watching an interview with Arsene Wenger, and the interviewer asked him if a player was unhappy to be on the bench instead of playing.

His response was that if a player was happy on the bench, he wouldn't be in the team at all.

Football moves on, times change. Happy might be an exaggeration, but I can see a player "accepting" his position on the bench, if the alternative is playing 2 divisions below.

Rugby considers their replacements as "finishers", nothing stopping the club trying something to gain an advantage.