re: Playing a Settled Side
I don't think it's possible due to the amount of games we have played in the last 82 days. 20 games in that time is phenomenal, and we hadn't played the 17th league game until December 1st last year. It's coming over 3 weeks earlier this year - plus extra cup games.
There's just no way we can play with knocks or injuries through Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday schedules.
We press high and fast, and look to intercept the ball rather than tackle. You can't do that once every 4 days.
It doesn't surprise me that our three best players last night in Dawkins, Omar and Russell have played the least amount of games so far. Definitely tells in Russell's work loads in the last few games.
I expect injuries to start cleaning up after the international break and a more settled side to come through, with only 14 in 95 to come.
I think we've rotated out of necessity. And if we get to the international break on top, or a point or two behind, then i think the best is to come.
Like Bryson's game su
re: Playing a Settled Side
I take your point Rapido, but look at the successful premiership sides - they all have fully interchangeable squads and indeed point to the depth and flexibility as a positive. I think I read somewhere that Manchester United had used over 30 players so far this season, and the better sides in the division have probably all used over 25.
Problem is do we want stability vs rotation? There is no point building a squad to take on the division and then only using 13 or 14 players. The others will get ring rusty and lose match fitness/awareness.
In the case of Eustace mid week (and I'm not entering the "was Omar great or shocking" debate as I didn't go yesterday) I imagine Eustace was rested ahead of the perception that the Wolves game will be a tough one, where we need to be more solid at the back. Hence I will be amazed if JE doesn't at least start on Saturday. Its horses for courses.
Situational selections and substitutions are what make for a good manager - the ability to selec
re: Playing a Settled Side
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger_ramjet
I take your point Rapido, but look at the successful premiership sides - they all have fully interchangeable squads and indeed point to the depth and flexibility as a positive. I think I read somewhere that Manchester United had used over 30 players so far this season, and the better sides in the division have probably all used over 25.
fair point but I think the prem is a different ball game roge. there's such disparity between a team like Chelsea and burnley, they can afford to rest 6 or 7 players and still be 100 times better than the opposition. the champions league clubs also have to factor in plane journeys etc rather than and hour or so on the coach. as for man utd - baring in mind it's their worst start to a season for almost 30 years - probably a fine example of my point, especially as they're not in European competition this year ;-)
the championship is so topsy turvy anyone can beat anyone (with the exception of
re: Playing a Settled Side
If players are tired, and not fit, then yep, rest 'em. Big believer in keeping freshness in a team.
I think it takes very good players and teams to handle constant chamges to personal tho, on a tactical level. Whilst it is arguable that it is a useful option, there is no doubt in my mind that it has drawbacks too.
Take CB pairing. Is it better to change (for example only) Shotts for Bucko every other game to deal with a dif striker threat than to have a long term settled partnership. Will the attributes of Shotts/Bucko, that are deemed useful for handling a player, out-weigh the overall pluses you get from a partnership that has a good understanding? Yes, Bucko might handle a player better than Shotts, but the disruption to both of them in terms of building a relationship with Keogh will surely have a long-term detrimental effect that will out-weigh the fact that one or the other might get 'done for pace' or 'out jumped' a lot in one or two games.
re: Playing a Settled Side
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapid
I was going to post this OP today and then one of toggles post prompted me.
both togs and I think that the constant tinkering with the team is adversely affecting performance. in fairness we're 3rd in the league a point off the top so it's not a moan but I think performances and thus consistent results will come if we start naming the same 11 each week.
I appreciate it's a busy campaign and there's a lot of games to get through but I still think a settled side is the way to go. people will get injured, suspended, loss of form etc and on those occasions obviously bring someone in.
I'm not intending another thread about who the 11 should be as we have current conundrums over bucko vs Whitbread vs shotton / omar vs Eustace / hughes vs bryson vs hendrick (2 of) / and Ibe vs dawks.
that's irrelevant but I think mac should make a decision on what his best 11 is and give them a run, whether we win lose or draw the next game.
Agree 100% c
re: Playing a Settled Side
Last season we played a settled team throughout, with the exception being the rotation between the 4 wide players.
Hendrick and Hughes had longish spells out of the team because of this.
I think this season a lot of the rotations are somewhat enforced. For example, Bryson. He'd still be in the team if not for illness. Similarly Will took a knock on international duty and thus needed a quick rest.
The centre-backs, however, seems an issue. Yes Buxton' injured again, but the chopping and changing between Whitbread and Shotton is too frequent for me.
It's worth noting we have a lot of continuity throughout the team. Grant (before injury), Christie, Forsyth, Ward (before injury) and Martin have all been mainstays.
I think as Mr. Dave-Cov pointed out on another thread, once we play saturday-to-saturday relevantly consistently, we'll have a more settled side and performances will reach a level no other team can match in this division.
re: Playing a Settled Side
Don't want to be 'that guy' but we're actually 4th in the league on goal difference ;D
re: Playing a Settled Side
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_D
Last season we played a settled team throughout, with the exception being the rotation between the 4 wide players.
Hendrick and Hughes had longish spells out of the team because of this.
I think this season a lot of the rotations are somewhat enforced. For example, Bryson. He'd still be in the team if not for illness. Similarly Will took a knock on international duty and thus needed a quick rest.
The centre-backs, however, seems an issue. Yes Buxton' injured again, but the chopping and changing between Whitbread and Shotton is too frequent for me.
It's worth noting we have a lot of continuity throughout the team. Grant (before injury), Christie, Forsyth, Ward (before injury) and Martin have all been mainstays.
I think as Mr. Dave-Cov pointed out on another thread, once we play saturday-to-saturday relevantly consistently, we'll have a more settled side and performances will reach a level no other team can match in this division.
re: Playing a Settled Side
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamFromCornwall
Don't want to be 'that guy' but we're actually 4th in the league on goal difference ;D
you are officially 'that guy' >:(
