Skip to main content

Squad Size

Squad Size

oil-man

oil-man

Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
4,258
Location
London/Buckinghamshire
What squad size is the ideal number for PNE?

Am I right in thinking that 25 is the maximum allowed in The Championship? I think less is more for North End - no point in padding it out with fillers just for the same of it.

With our resources, we need small enough so that we don't dilute the quality but large enough to not do our usual second half season slump due to weak replacements.

Cover for each position would be 22; would this be enough, topped up with youths in an emergency outside of a window?
 
2 per position should be enough - although it wasn’t last year but it was quite an unprecedented injury crisis.

We’ve got a few players now who are quite versatile which can only be a good thing.
 
It depends. You'd say 2 players for each position as a minimum. However if you're wanting to have options for multiple formations, that changes things a bit. Depends how happy you are to rely on development players.
 
2 players for each position doesn't always work though. If you play a formation with a lone striker, you're not going to be happy with just 1 other striker on the bench / cover for injuries / 9 match bans etc.
 
OB1 said:
Honestly I’d say we need the full 25. Even though we won’t get that

People can say the injury crisis was unprecedented, but Sheff U fans warned us that Heckingbottom squads pick up lots of injuries so it’s not that unprecedented and look how it derails our season
Click to expand...
I think the attitude of the club hierarchy to a lot of injuries derailing a season is "oh well, that's sport!", with an "on to the next one" shrug of the shoulders.

Clubs focused on a top 6 finish would want to cover all eventualities meticulously, but I've never got that impression from our guys, we always go into a new season having done the bare minimum, hoping all the risk factors go in our favour, blaming them post-season when they don't.

It's also not just about the squad numbers, it's the quality - you can have 25 squad players, but if 13 or 14 of them would only start a game as a last resort, as we had last season, it doesn't really mean anything.
 
Having players who are flexible and can play multiple positions makes a big difference.

A lot of people say 2 per position but it isn't really as simple as that. For example if you play three at the back then 5 specialist centrebacks is enough, as long as you have someone else who can fill in if needed (KKH last season for example). But that only works if each of the centrebacks are comfortable in more than one position - which we didnt have last season with Lindsay and Bauer only able to play as the central of three and Hughes only really an option on the left.

Likewise you probably want four forwards, even if you're only playing one up top so you've got options. If you're doing that then at least of couple of those need to be able to play #10 or wide.

Fitness makes a big difference as well. Carrying injury prone players means you need a bigger squad.

I think years of having injury prone, inflexible players has coloured some people's perception to the point they thing we need a 25 man squad. We really don't, if we have the right players.

Twenty or twenty one senior players should be enough, plus the young pros who i wouldn't count in the numbers, and keeping a couple of loan spots open to cover injury crisis in specific positions.
 
PNE need more ambidextrous/two-footed players.

Idk why such obviously-one-footed Professional players ( the best example was Daniel Johnson ) wouldn't or couldn't be coached to be able to become literally more versatile.
Idk why being so reliant on their best foot is tolerated at such a high level of the game.
 
pneal said:
Having players who are flexible and can play multiple positions makes a big difference.

A lot of people say 2 per position but it isn't really as simple as that. For example if you play three at the back then 5 specialist centrebacks is enough, as long as you have someone else who can fill in if needed (KKH last season for example). But that only works if each of the centrebacks are comfortable in more than one position - which we didnt have last season with Lindsay and Bauer only able to play as the central of three and Hughes only really an option on the left.

Likewise you probably want four forwards, even if you're only playing one up top so you've got options. If you're doing that then at least of couple of those need to be able to play #10 or wide.

Fitness makes a big difference as well. Carrying injury prone players means you need a bigger squad.

I think years of having injury prone, inflexible players has coloured some people's perception to the point they thing we need a 25 man squad. We really don't, if we have the right players.

Twenty or twenty one senior players should be enough, plus the young pros who i wouldn't count in the numbers, and keeping a couple of loan spots open to cover injury crisis in specific positions.
Click to expand...
Behave!
20 or 21 is nowhere near enough.
If we are gonna predominantly playing a back 3, you need cover for every position, not just shuffling people across an the like.
That is just asking for problems, especially with lack of quality across our back line.
 
pneal said:
Having players who are flexible and can play multiple positions makes a big difference.

A lot of people say 2 per position but it isn't really as simple as that. For example if you play three at the back then 5 specialist centrebacks is enough, as long as you have someone else who can fill in if needed (KKH last season for example). But that only works if each of the centrebacks are comfortable in more than one position - which we didnt have last season with Lindsay and Bauer only able to play as the central of three and Hughes only really an option on the left.

Likewise you probably want four forwards, even if you're only playing one up top so you've got options. If you're doing that then at least of couple of those need to be able to play #10 or wide.

Fitness makes a big difference as well. Carrying injury prone players means you need a bigger squad.

I think years of having injury prone, inflexible players has coloured some people's perception to the point they thing we need a 25 man squad. We really don't, if we have the right players.

Twenty or twenty one senior players should be enough, plus the young pros who i wouldn't count in the numbers, and keeping a couple of loan spots open to cover injury crisis in specific positions.
Click to expand...
Versatility is nice to have, but players usually only have one position they're genuinely good at, the rest they can "do a job". Our squad has had quite a few of them (some of them only seem able to "do a job" no matter where they're put).

I think genuinely versatile players - equally good in multiple positions - tend to cost even more than simple one-position specialists.

And when one guy is signed to cover multiple positions, he can still only play one position at a time, and you're vulnerable as a squad when he's unavailable.
 
With the signings we've made already we seem to have helped our options with the signing able to play in numerous positions we have better options than last season. We seemed to get lots of injuries in a short period of time which messed us up hopefully the physio's and fitness coaches can get on top of the problems this season.
 
Naughton's moustache said:
Behave!
20 or 21 is nowhere near enough.
If we are gonna predominantly playing a back 3, you need cover for every position, not just shuffling people across an the like.
That is just asking for problems, especially with lack of quality across our back line.
Click to expand...
Cover for every position absolutely, but that doesn't mean 1:1. And having a specialist doesn't mean they're any good.

If we're going to have a sixth choice centreback, they're not going to play much. And if they're not going to play much, we're not going to be to attract (or pay) a good player for that role: so you're looking at filling out the squad with players like Bauer and Whatmough who are happy enough picking up a wage and rarely playing, because they wouldn't get a Championship contract anywhere else.

Are you honestly saying that last season you'd rather have had Bauer or Whatmough stepping in rather than KKH when he filled in at right centre back? If the makeshift guy shuffling across is still better than the specialist you can afford why have a specialist?

The issue was not having someone to fill in at RwB, but now we have Valentin, Small and Potts all able to play there we've done something to address that.
 
pneal said:
Cover for every position absolutely, but that doesn't mean 1:1. And having a specialist doesn't mean they're any good.

If we're going to have a sixth choice centreback, they're not going to play much. And if they're not going to play much, we're not going to be to attract (or pay) a good player for that role: so you're looking at filling out the squad with players like Bauer and Whatmough who are happy enough picking up a wage and rarely playing, because they wouldn't get a Championship contract anywhere else.

Are you honestly saying that last season you'd rather have had Bauer or Whatmough stepping in rather than KKH when he filled in at right centre back? If the makeshift guy shuffling across is still better than the specialist you can afford why have a specialist?

The issue was not having someone to fill in at RwB, but now we have Valentin, Small and Potts all able to play there we've done something to address that.
Click to expand...
We lack quality across that back line with the exception of Gibson.
We've lacked quality across the back line for a number of seasons now.
That is a fact!
When the extensions were given out, most people were of the opinion that these extensions would be acceptable if it meant that they wouldn't be obvious starters.
I didn't mention anything about the wingback positions.
As it stands, if we get injuries across that back line, ( as in back 3) we have major problems.
Whatmough hopefully gets moved on an we bring in a RCB plus a CB.
Competition for places in their specialist positions rather than average utility fill in types.
 
However we view the transfer business so far, it seems clear that there will be 3 more additions. After that it has to be 1 in 1 out. Whichever way you cut it, the squad depth will be woefully inadequate. The first 11 can be as good as it wants but injuries mean we will immediately struggle.

And if Iversen gets injured outside a window we are immediately plunged into a relegation battle.
 
pneal said:
Having players who are flexible and can play multiple positions makes a big difference.

A lot of people say 2 per position but it isn't really as simple as that. For example if you play three at the back then 5 specialist centrebacks is enough, as long as you have someone else who can fill in if needed (KKH last season for example). But that only works if each of the centrebacks are comfortable in more than one position - which we didnt have last season with Lindsay and Bauer only able to play as the central of three and Hughes only really an option on the left.
Click to expand...
I have to admit I've said it before that 5 centrebacks isn't enough if we're playing 3 at the back but you're right that it's about having 6 players who can play centreback; not necessarily having 6 players whose only position is centreback. If we're getting to our last choices, it's normally fine if it's not their best position just as long as they're capable of doing a job for a game or two. In recent years Alan Browne, Brad Potts, Liam Millar, Kaine Kesler-Hayden, and Sepp Van den Berg have shown it's perfectly possible for us to sign players who are capable of playing out of position at a decent enough standard.
 
Back
Top