We really need another central defender - two if Pierre leaves. Otherwise it's Jombati being shifted over or Rowe being moved out of central midfield (where I hope he's given the chance to form a working partnership with O'Nien which could pay real dividends). Neither option is ideal.
In a small squad with little funds, it's likely we'll go shorter with more quality, like the last couple of seasons.
As you say above, there's 2 players who can cover centre back as it is, so would we really bring in another centre back? I'm not sure, unless it's a loanee.
Left back, we have Jacobsen, Wood, Jomabti
Right back, Jombati, Harriman, Bean
(Rowe possibly for either as well)
Left, Wood and the new signing
Right, Paris, Harriman
Centre mid, 6options
Striker, Hayes, Thompson, new guy and Paris
2 goalies, and we have an 18man squad. Ainsworth might see that as enough for starters.
Goalkeeper injuries in matches are rare. Obviously happened at Plymouth but that is the exception. So if you only have one keeper and he gets injured, then simply bring another in on loan.
I understand your point re competition but in a world where resources are very tight, are those resources better spent on a second GK who will do nothing else but sit on the bench or on a extra outfield player who might be needed.
I think two goalies is the way to go. I agree with all the words above but think one important thing is being missed out. From Monday to Friday all players train better when they have other to match to and compete against. Having just one keeper with a coach makes training much less interesting, makes rest periods harder and makes it quite a lonely existance. We could get by with one keeper but I'd always want two on the books.
I think we are planning season long loans for the first choie keeper and a trialist as the reserve. Will be interesting to see who gets a go in pre season.
I dunno about defenders @Malone - I really think we lost a lot through all the chopping and changing of the defence last season to accommodate injuries. The constant repositioning meant that players weren't in their natural positions, players weren't jelling and we didn't have the confidence to play it out of defence. I'd far prefer to see one utility defender brought in to sub in with any of the four who are out (or at least any of the three - Wood is fine subbing in for Jacobson) rather than widescale reshaping to accommodate injury. Very happy to have a young defender on a season-long loan take on that responsibility though.
Not sure I buy the specialist training argument although an interesting point. For Strongest, there were several times last season when the only two keepers available on match day were the first choice and Richardson. Of course Richardson played 80 mins or so at Plymouth. Richardson would be fine as match day emergency cover IMHO.
In truth there may be an issue if Richardson is registered in that he may then preclude a loanee keeper being signed if first choice gets injured. I think I would be getting clarification and apply for an exemption now.
If at all possible, I would avoid allocating scarce resources to a guy you have no intention of ever playing.
@DevC , I think you can get a loan keeper in if you are down to one as you're generally expected to need two for a matchday squad. So just having a first choice with Baz for backup does make sense if you want to access the emergency loan market.
Isn't this the new rule: Clubs will be permitted to sign a goalkeeper on a seven day ‘emergency loan’ basis if they do not have a senior goalkeeper that has made 5 starting appearances in first team football.
which means we wouldn't be able to make a loan signing outside of the window if Richardson remains a registered player.
Prefer a secondary keeper to work alongside the first. All this black arts with emergency keeper stuff is nuts. Rather a secondary keeper, who has trained with our squad, than call in "Mr Gloves", who doesn't know how we setup at the back.
We may get a very good or bad premier/Championship league 2/3rd keeper who knows, but prefer the devil you know.
Just in answer to Chris point, I think the club would be well advised to seek clarity on Richardson and whether the would be considered to be caught up by this rule or whether he could be exempted. He clearly is not the intention behind the rule.
Liburd to Stevenage is an interesting one. I got the feeling that if he had scored in his first or second game for us he would have been a real handful and would have pushed on. He didn't and was somewhat of a disappointment (like most our strikers) in the final part of the season.
I think signing him, especially for a fee, would have been too much of a risk as we can't afford too many rolls of the dice and we certainly don't need another Ugwu in the squad. He may pay off handsomely for Stevenage then we can all grind our teeth in frustration.
I didn't see the first game where Liburd by all accounts looked a threat and played well. Whenever I saw him he was poor and contributed nothing. Very different to Ugwu who, despite a lack of quality, always made life difficult for opposition defences and won us a point at Accrington with his battling presence. Liburd clearly has the greater potential of the two but he'll have to improve quickly to hold down a first team place. I think we can do better than either of them.
@Devc the response is likely to be something along the lines of emergency loans only being used for emergencies caused by injuries and unavailability, not to allow clubs to go into the season with a calculated shortage of goalkeepers. And if you've got no intention of using Richardson as cover, why have him registered as a player.
An option which the new rules do allow is to take on on loan until January a young goalkeeper from a club higher up the leagues - we can put him on the bench each week, giving him the experience of being in the squad for first team match days while he continues playing at reserves/academy level for his parent club.
Maybe, but plainly the rules were not intended to catch Richardson and plainly intended not to encourage clubs like Wycombe not to register Richardson.
Maybe there are young lads out there at premier league clubs ready to play lg2 football that those clubs are happy to send to us knowing he will not play but hey he does get to experience the pleasure of a fortnightly coach journey to the other end of the country all to sit on a bench and then another coach journey home again. I have to question what he would gain from that and why the GK concerned wouldn't benefit more from being loaned to a conference team where he would play. Am I missing something?
Would it make more sense to sign a young keeper as back up, with the aim of him being our number one in a couple of seasons, and to get a more experienced keeper in on loan for this season ?
Yes we did, but not a great example. He was a couple of months from being out of contract which was not going to be renewed and was with us with a view to a permanent contract. he then got a better offer. Start of the season very different. Have any similar deals been done at any Lg1/Lg2 club yet.
According to Sky we still have Lynch, Horlock, Siegrist, Allsopp and Barry in goal! In fact, here's our squad according to Sky:
Goalkeeper
Ryan Allsop
Barry Richardson
Charlie Horlock
Alex Lynch
Benjamin Siegrist
Defender
Joe Jacobson
Anthony Stewart
Aaron Pierre
Tommy Fletcher
Danny Rowe
Michael Harriman
Jason McCarthy
Midfielder
Sido Jombati
Stephen McGinn
Marcus Bean
Matt Bloomfield
Sam Wood
Garry Thompson
Ryan Sellers
Luke O'Nien
Max Kretzschmar
Nicky Walker
Chinaemerem Jermaine Udumaga
Hogan Ephraim
Gareth Ainsworth
Attacking Midfielder
Myles Weston
Striker
Paul Hayes
Rowan Liburd
Gozie Ugwu
Paris Cowan-Hall
Jerell Sellars
Dayle Southwell
Not sure how accurate the squad numbers on Wiki are but Paris has 12 on there, rather than the high numbers the loanees usually get. Probably reading too much into it (and wishful thinking) but maybe it's a sign of him staying past the loan.
Paris will only have 6 months left on his Millwall contract by the end of the loan so maybe a January move for him if he stays unbroken and picks up old form ?
So are we a 16 or 30 + squad I noticed we are using two mini buses for the France trip or is the second bus for camping gear and food.Not a good start for team confidence..
Comments
Will certainly be interesting to see how we lineup. Would we ever go with Paris and Weston as wingers together in a 4-4-2?
How would we shape up with the centre mids? 6 who can play there, so actually a few options.
2 keepers, and we'd have 18 players which is probably enough to go unless we can get a couple of multiple positionees
We really need another central defender - two if Pierre leaves. Otherwise it's Jombati being shifted over or Rowe being moved out of central midfield (where I hope he's given the chance to form a working partnership with O'Nien which could pay real dividends). Neither option is ideal.
In a small squad with little funds, it's likely we'll go shorter with more quality, like the last couple of seasons.
As you say above, there's 2 players who can cover centre back as it is, so would we really bring in another centre back? I'm not sure, unless it's a loanee.
Left back, we have Jacobsen, Wood, Jomabti
Right back, Jombati, Harriman, Bean
(Rowe possibly for either as well)
Left, Wood and the new signing
Right, Paris, Harriman
Centre mid, 6options
Striker, Hayes, Thompson, new guy and Paris
2 goalies, and we have an 18man squad. Ainsworth might see that as enough for starters.
Got to agree with you there, but all in all it's looking good with the signings.
Out of interest why have two goalkeepers
Apart from the obvious i.e. injuries, no player should be guaranteed a starting place and needs to be constantly challenged for hisbposition.
Goalkeeper injuries in matches are rare. Obviously happened at Plymouth but that is the exception. So if you only have one keeper and he gets injured, then simply bring another in on loan.
I understand your point re competition but in a world where resources are very tight, are those resources better spent on a second GK who will do nothing else but sit on the bench or on a extra outfield player who might be needed.
I think two goalies is the way to go. I agree with all the words above but think one important thing is being missed out. From Monday to Friday all players train better when they have other to match to and compete against. Having just one keeper with a coach makes training much less interesting, makes rest periods harder and makes it quite a lonely existance. We could get by with one keeper but I'd always want two on the books.
I think we are planning season long loans for the first choie keeper and a trialist as the reserve. Will be interesting to see who gets a go in pre season.
I dunno about defenders @Malone - I really think we lost a lot through all the chopping and changing of the defence last season to accommodate injuries. The constant repositioning meant that players weren't in their natural positions, players weren't jelling and we didn't have the confidence to play it out of defence. I'd far prefer to see one utility defender brought in to sub in with any of the four who are out (or at least any of the three - Wood is fine subbing in for Jacobson) rather than widescale reshaping to accommodate injury. Very happy to have a young defender on a season-long loan take on that responsibility though.
Not sure I buy the specialist training argument although an interesting point. For Strongest, there were several times last season when the only two keepers available on match day were the first choice and Richardson. Of course Richardson played 80 mins or so at Plymouth. Richardson would be fine as match day emergency cover IMHO.
In truth there may be an issue if Richardson is registered in that he may then preclude a loanee keeper being signed if first choice gets injured. I think I would be getting clarification and apply for an exemption now.
If at all possible, I would avoid allocating scarce resources to a guy you have no intention of ever playing.
@DevC , I think you can get a loan keeper in if you are down to one as you're generally expected to need two for a matchday squad. So just having a first choice with Baz for backup does make sense if you want to access the emergency loan market.
Isn't this the new rule:
Clubs will be permitted to sign a goalkeeper on a seven day ‘emergency loan’ basis if they do not have a senior goalkeeper that has made 5 starting appearances in first team football.
which means we wouldn't be able to make a loan signing outside of the window if Richardson remains a registered player.
If only it said 'in the last ten years' at the end.
Obvious really. Sign on Richardson as a striker
Well if we need a striker, it will not be Liburd. Gone to Stevenage for a five figure fee. Gutted
Prefer a secondary keeper to work alongside the first. All this black arts with emergency keeper stuff is nuts. Rather a secondary keeper, who has trained with our squad, than call in "Mr Gloves", who doesn't know how we setup at the back.
We may get a very good or bad premier/Championship league 2/3rd keeper who knows, but prefer the devil you know.
Just in answer to Chris point, I think the club would be well advised to seek clarity on Richardson and whether the would be considered to be caught up by this rule or whether he could be exempted. He clearly is not the intention behind the rule.
I suspect any exemption would have to go through FIFA as the drive to end the loan system is coming from them - it might not be an easy task.
Possibly not. Worth a call though.
Liburd to Stevenage is an interesting one. I got the feeling that if he had scored in his first or second game for us he would have been a real handful and would have pushed on. He didn't and was somewhat of a disappointment (like most our strikers) in the final part of the season.
I think signing him, especially for a fee, would have been too much of a risk as we can't afford too many rolls of the dice and we certainly don't need another Ugwu in the squad. He may pay off handsomely for Stevenage then we can all grind our teeth in frustration.
I didn't see the first game where Liburd by all accounts looked a threat and played well. Whenever I saw him he was poor and contributed nothing. Very different to Ugwu who, despite a lack of quality, always made life difficult for opposition defences and won us a point at Accrington with his battling presence. Liburd clearly has the greater potential of the two but he'll have to improve quickly to hold down a first team place. I think we can do better than either of them.
@Devc the response is likely to be something along the lines of emergency loans only being used for emergencies caused by injuries and unavailability, not to allow clubs to go into the season with a calculated shortage of goalkeepers. And if you've got no intention of using Richardson as cover, why have him registered as a player.
An option which the new rules do allow is to take on on loan until January a young goalkeeper from a club higher up the leagues - we can put him on the bench each week, giving him the experience of being in the squad for first team match days while he continues playing at reserves/academy level for his parent club.
Maybe, but plainly the rules were not intended to catch Richardson and plainly intended not to encourage clubs like Wycombe not to register Richardson.
Maybe there are young lads out there at premier league clubs ready to play lg2 football that those clubs are happy to send to us knowing he will not play but hey he does get to experience the pleasure of a fortnightly coach journey to the other end of the country all to sit on a bench and then another coach journey home again. I have to question what he would gain from that and why the GK concerned wouldn't benefit more from being loaned to a conference team where he would play. Am I missing something?
Would it make more sense to sign a young keeper as back up, with the aim of him being our number one in a couple of seasons, and to get a more experienced keeper in on loan for this season ?
Yes. You've missed something. We had a loan keeper at the end of last season who did exactly what you described barring one token game.
Yes we did, but not a great example. He was a couple of months from being out of contract which was not going to be renewed and was with us with a view to a permanent contract. he then got a better offer. Start of the season very different. Have any similar deals been done at any Lg1/Lg2 club yet.
Maybe we could get Alex Lynch back.
According to Sky we still have Lynch, Horlock, Siegrist, Allsopp and Barry in goal! In fact, here's our squad according to Sky:
Goalkeeper
Ryan Allsop
Barry Richardson
Charlie Horlock
Alex Lynch
Benjamin Siegrist
Defender
Joe Jacobson
Anthony Stewart
Aaron Pierre
Tommy Fletcher
Danny Rowe
Michael Harriman
Jason McCarthy
Midfielder
Sido Jombati
Stephen McGinn
Marcus Bean
Matt Bloomfield
Sam Wood
Garry Thompson
Ryan Sellers
Luke O'Nien
Max Kretzschmar
Nicky Walker
Chinaemerem Jermaine Udumaga
Hogan Ephraim
Gareth Ainsworth
Attacking Midfielder
Myles Weston
Striker
Paul Hayes
Rowan Liburd
Gozie Ugwu
Paris Cowan-Hall
Jerell Sellars
Dayle Southwell
Not sure how accurate the squad numbers on Wiki are but Paris has 12 on there, rather than the high numbers the loanees usually get. Probably reading too much into it (and wishful thinking) but maybe it's a sign of him staying past the loan.
32 players. Should be enough.
Paris will only have 6 months left on his Millwall contract by the end of the loan so maybe a January move for him if he stays unbroken and picks up old form ?
So are we a 16 or 30 + squad I noticed we are using two mini buses for the France trip or is the second bus for camping gear and food.Not a good start for team confidence..