Squad size

[mushRTID]

Where on earth do we go from here.
We’ve bloated the squad in the summer with players no better than what finished last season.

We probably need 3 or 4 to push for autos.

So where do we start in moving 4 - 6 players on!

Certainties to go are Yeboah, Jones, Faulkner for me.

Would not be sad to see any of Close, Clifton, Gibson out on loan.

Grant has some tough decisions to make as we can’t just keep signing more players. His signings have been poor.

[Alan Southstand]

By getting all these players in I think he’s absolutely confused the hell out of himself . He should have realised by now that some of his signings have been mediocre (at best).

Certain players play no matter how they perform, which must piss some of the other lads off.

Then there’s those that he retained, for whatever reason, e.g. Close & Westbrook. Both in a part of the team that needed reinforcing.

Hate to say it, but Billy Sharp looks to have confused things even more. Nothing wrong with Ironside last season so why the swapping and changing?

We seem to be doing our best at throwing this season down the pan. Something has to change - and quickly.

[edlored]

Got to the stage were I just want a winning team if it means playing three athletic six foot +front three and getting the ball in the box because this perceive way of playing is just not working and boring the pants of us supporters what are turning up because we are not attracting new ones

[andyst79]

Got to the stage were I just want a winning team if it means playing three athletic six foot +front three and getting the ball in the box because this perceive way of playing is just not working and boring the pants of us supporters what are turning up because we are not attracting new ones

Played 2 up front yesterday but Molly was operating more as a 10. Surely you play with 2 wingers and look to get quality balls in the box if you've got 2 up top?

[ncRover]

By getting all these players in I think he’s absolutely confused the hell out of himself . He should have realised by now that some of his signings have been mediocre (at best).

Certain players play no matter how they perform, which must piss some of the other lads off.

Then there’s those that he retained, for whatever reason, e.g. Close & Westbrook. Both in a part of the team that needed reinforcing.

Hate to say it, but Billy Sharp looks to have confused things even more. Nothing wrong with Ironside last season so why the swapping and changing?

We seem to be doing our best at throwing this season down the pan. Something has to change - and quickly.

Love the guy but the club made a mistake in the summer and let its obsession with Billy Sharp get the better of it.

People bemoan “lack of service” but if he can’t hold the ball up, run the channels or press with intensity then that in my view is a bigger limiting factor for the team as a whole.

Maybe he’d make sense as an impact sub, but with his name and likely wage that was never going to be the case was it? I warned against all this in the summer before I get accused of being a reactionary.

Gibson doesn’t fit the style of play either which doesn’t help Ironside. With what we’ve got, I think a front 3 of Hurst Ironside and Molyneux would make more sense. But we’ve barely seen that front 3 all season. How many minutes has it played stattos?

[DollyRover]

Signing billy wasn't itself a bad decision depending on the way he is utilised. I don't think I was alone in assuming he would be used much more sparingly and more often then not, brought on with 15-20 minutes to go against a tiring defence. Maybe that was the plan but Ironside hasn't scored anywhere near enough, whether that's because Billy has been starting or Billy has been starting because Ironside isn't quite at it at the moment but one way or another we need him amongst the goals. Can't be calling for a striker to start when he's not scoring goals

[DonnyBazR0ver]

By getting all these players in I think he’s absolutely confused the hell out of himself . He should have realised by now that some of his signings have been mediocre (at best).

Certain players play no matter how they perform, which must piss some of the other lads off.

Then there’s those that he retained, for whatever reason, e.g. Close & Westbrook. Both in a part of the team that needed reinforcing.

Hate to say it, but Billy Sharp looks to have confused things even more. Nothing wrong with Ironside last season so why the swapping and changing?

We seem to be doing our best at throwing this season down the pan. Something has to change - and quickly.

I've been thinking the same, trying to look at it from a players perspective. They could be forgiven to thinking it doesn't matter how well they play because it doesn't guarantee selection or, in one particular case, Bailey will play no matter what. Now, players will accept that if he's a vital cog in the way we play and was consistently good but alas, he isn't. McCann has dropped Molyneux, albeit very briefly, but Bailey has remained exempt.

Anyway, it's not all about Bailey but as with everything there's always risks with the selection policy and I think the feeling amongst us fans is McCanns tinkering for tinkering sake trying to keep players involved and/or setting up for the opposition.

That in itself, given we're behind where we need to be, suggests the horses for courses approach, isn't working well enough and sends the message that we are more worried about the opposition than confident a 'settled' team could overcome anything thrown at them.

[GazLaz]

Got to the stage were I just want a winning team if it means playing three athletic six foot +front three and getting the ball in the box because this perceive way of playing is just not working and boring the pants of us supporters what are turning up because we are not attracting new ones

Played 2 up front yesterday but Molly was operating more as a 10. Surely you play with 2 wingers and look to get quality balls in the box if you've got 2 up top?

We played two up top but ripped most of the creativity out of the side to accommodate them. Made no sense. Creating chances is the most important part of the game.

Even when we did get into the final third we were slow to get the ball into the box.

[ravenrover]

Exactly what Grant said when asked about playing 2 up top, you lose the width.

[GazLaz]

Exactly what Grant said when asked about playing 2 up top, you lose the width.

Not necessarily. Plenty of teams (Walsall!) play with two up top and have wing backs that offer attacking width.

You can also have creativity without having width.

[ncRover]

Sbarra was meant to be one of our main summer signings and offer creativity.
Why has Grant signed a player that he can’t find a way to fit in?

[GazLaz]

By the way, last summers business (signings and contract renewals) was another big piece of evidence that the club needs a proper sporting director who has jurisdiction over these things and a smarter approach to the running of the club.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Exactly what Grant said when asked about playing 2 up top, you lose the width.

Not necessarily. Plenty of teams (Walsall!) play with two up top and have wing backs that offer attacking width.

You can also have creativity without having width.

Agree with this and I actually think the full backs yesterday were pretty poor.  Fleming, Senior, Emmanuel for me aren't good enough (maybe harsh on JE).  We miss Maxwell and Sterry when they're out.

But overall on the squad size position, it is too big.  We kept Close/Westbrooke when surely the better option was one better player than those 2 average?

[GazLaz]

Exactly what Grant said when asked about playing 2 up top, you lose the width.

Not necessarily. Plenty of teams (Walsall!) play with two up top and have wing backs that offer attacking width.

You can also have creativity without having width.

Agree with this and I actually think the full backs yesterday were pretty poor.  Fleming, Senior, Emmanuel for me aren't good enough (maybe harsh on JE).  We miss Maxwell and Sterry when they're out.

But overall on the squad size position, it is too big.  We kept Close/Westbrooke when surely the better option was one better player than those 2 average?

Both fullbacks were poor yesterday. Maxwell being out/not fit, whatever the situation is there, is costing us. I don’t really rate Sterry but he links up well with Moly and potentially brings the best out in him. Senior, another player like Clifton, who’s best asset is that he gives 100% all the time. That’s no praise is it. Fine on the left of a back three but not a left back for our set up.


Ironside needs a run of starts with a combination (or all) of Moly, Hurst and Gibson around him.

[andyst79]

Exactly what Grant said when asked about playing 2 up top, you lose the width.

Not necessarily. Plenty of teams (Walsall!) play with two up top and have wing backs that offer attacking width.

You can also have creativity without having width.

Agree with this and I actually think the full backs yesterday were pretty poor.  Fleming, Senior, Emmanuel for me aren't good enough (maybe harsh on JE).  We miss Maxwell and Sterry when they're out.

But overall on the squad size position, it is too big.  We kept Close/Westbrooke when surely the better option was one better player than those 2 average?

Both fullbacks were poor yesterday. Maxwell being out/not fit, whatever the situation is there, is costing us. I don’t really rate Sterry but he links up well with Moly and potentially brings the best out in him. Senior, another player like Clifton, who’s best asset is that he gives 100% all the time. That’s no praise is it. Fine on the left of a back three but not a left back for our set up.


Ironside needs a run of starts with a combination (or all) of Moly, Hurst and Gibson around him.

Agree on Ironside and while I've been an advocator for Hurst he goes missing in games, I really thought he'd kick on after Bradford and grasp his opportunity but didn't take it. Admittedly the chopping and changing of systems and personnel doesn't seem to help.

[ravenrover]

Exactly what Grant said when asked about playing 2 up top, you lose the width.

Not necessarily. Plenty of teams (Walsall!) play with two up top and have wing backs that offer attacking width.

You can also have creativity without having width.

Don't they also have strong midfield, something we don't seem to have

[ncRover]

I find it interesting that no one complains about Richard Wood’s contract renewal when they do about other players who are easy targets on here.

There were plenty of defenders we could have signed in the summer to give us another option but we’ve gone for someone who’s nearly 40, is going to play 1 game for us all season and retire.

[danumdon]

Ironside needs a run of starts with a combination (or all) of Moly, Hurst and Gibson around him.
[/quote]

Exactly what Grant said when asked about playing 2 up top, you lose the width.

Not necessarily. Plenty of teams (Walsall!) play with two up top and have wing backs that offer attacking width.

You can also have creativity without having width.

Agree with this and I actually think the full backs yesterday were pretty poor.  Fleming, Senior, Emmanuel for me aren't good enough (maybe harsh on JE).  We miss Maxwell and Sterry when they're out.

But overall on the squad size position, it is too big.  We kept Close/Westbrooke when surely the better option was one better player than those 2 average?

Both fullbacks were poor yesterday. Maxwell being out/not fit, whatever the situation is there, is costing us. I don’t really rate Sterry but he links up well with Moly and potentially brings the best out in him. Senior, another player like Clifton, who’s best asset is that he gives 100% all the time. That’s no praise is it. Fine on the left of a back three but not a left back for our set up.


Ironside needs a run of starts with a combination (or all) of Moly, Hurst and Gibson around him.

Agree on Ironside and while I've been an advocator for Hurst he goes missing in games, I really thought he'd kick on after Bradford and grasp his opportunity but didn't take it. Admittedly the chopping and changing of systems and personnel doesn't seem to help.

Exactly what Grant said when asked about playing 2 up top, you lose the width.

Not necessarily. Plenty of teams (Walsall!) play with two up top and have wing backs that offer attacking width.

You can also have creativity without having width.

Don't they also have strong midfield, something we don't seem to have

Seems to me (and everyone else on here) the common denominator is our lack of vision, strength and determination in the middle of our midfield to get our (pretty players) playing. We have lacked that midfield general since the departure of Whiteman and have never been able to successfully replace him.

If we need anything to add to this squad of players its that type of individual.

Without that player we are rudderless, any additions in the attacking area will be as at present denied the opportunity to express themselves.

You need to earn the right to play how we want to, its not happening because we lack the Mister to implement it all.

[andyst79]

I find it interesting that no one complains about Richard Wood’s contract renewal when they do about other players who are easy targets on here.

There were plenty of defenders we could have signed in the summer to give us another option but we’ve gone for someone who’s nearly 40, is going to play 1 game for us all season and retire.

TBF I get what you're saying to a degree , However Wood was as instrumental as anyone last season when we went on that run so I can understand us offering him a new contract, think GM had it in his mind he'd help develop our younger cb's also. For his limitations we've missed his leadership qualities this season.

[DonnyNoel]

Where on earth do we go from here.
We’ve bloated the squad in the summer with players no better than what finished last season.

We probably need 3 or 4 to push for autos.

So where do we start in moving 4 - 6 players on!

Certainties to go are Yeboah, Jones, Faulkner for me.

Would not be sad to see any of Close, Clifton, Gibson out on loan.

Grant has some tough decisions to make as we can’t just keep signing more players. His signings have been poor.

Definitely agree although the problem with moving on the first three that you mention is that they aren't really around the first team so it's not really reducing the bloat of the squad. I'm hoping we just need get one or two real quality in and thats the final piece of the puzzle like when we got Haks in last year.

[DonnyOsmond]

I find it interesting that no one complains about Richard Wood’s contract renewal when they do about other players who are easy targets on here.

There were plenty of defenders we could have signed in the summer to give us another option but we’ve gone for someone who’s nearly 40, is going to play 1 game for us all season and retire.

That's on hindsight though, at the time he was one of the main cogs in our turn around last season due to his leadership and we weren't to know he'd get injured and be out for most of the season.

[sedwardsdrfc]

At the time he was 39. Assuming he’s not on massive money it wasn’t the worst thing to offer him a deal. If he’s on starting player salary we’re silly.

The depth should be our biggest asset but we haven’t found our way of playing so we just look a bit off it and then get tempted into changing too much.

Billy signing surely wasn’t about been 1st choice but he’s scoring at a better rate than Ironside so Grants going to play him.

Think Grant need to keep it simple and settle on a way of playing and stick to it with the best balanced team we have.

[Butchers Red]

Historically, successful sides playing a front pair comprising an aerial winner like Joe with the "fox in the box" type like Billy always had decent out and out wingers whose job was simple - beat your man, get to the line and fire in out swinging crosses which immediately make onrushing forwards the favorites. The other ingredient of such sides were midfielders also piling in to the box creating a defenders nightmare.

Local examples of this set up begin with our heroic 2004 front line of Macca, LFW, GB and a young Copps, and the likes of Greeny and Doolan flying in to support them, we all know how effective that lot were.

Our neighbours, Rotherham did the same between 1980 and 1983 - Gordon Owen then Joe McBride on the left with Tony Towner on the right feeding Ronny Moore and John Seasman.

The blades did the same in 1988 and 1990, Ian Bryson and Tony Towner feeding Deane and Agana getting promoted in successive seasons under Bassett

All those sides won championships, Rotherham were and I saw them all regularly, their wingers almost NEVER cut infield like ours do but stuck to their job of supplying the front two.

I am sure almost everyone would agree that plug Joe and Billy into any of the above 3 sides they would both hit 15 to 20 goals apiece over a season.

Instead of going that route, we are prioritizing and setting up for our wide men as the focal point, neither of whom have succeeded, this method has been worked out and week in week out they face 2 or 3 closing them out, leaving them with little option as we continuously see to play it back.

Meanwhile Joe and Billy are stuck in no mans land, backs to goal usually with 3 centre backs up their *rse all game long. And some on here wonder why they can't score FFS.

It's no coincidence that the last time we won easily ( Fleetwood away)  we played without our "wingers" and instead had wing backs, hitting the lines and crossing rather than cutting in we've banged goals in and won easily.