• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Squad

Importance of Fringe players / Squad players

Just a quick thread discussion to have a better look into the the value and expectation of squad players

|Not as relevant to many of you but the other day Shaquille O'neal and Charles Barkley (basketball players ) were talking about the effects of "Others" (supporting players around the star players) and how the system adopted by the team is there to enhance the Others which in turn helps the star players to perform, the system to thrive, the team to win games and therefore be a successful big unit

I guess the point i am trying to make is that when you compare any team (aside from barca and madrid) you will get a staggeringly large amount of supporting players in relation to the number of star players that are there. These team win games , and they win alot with these supporting cast being big contributors

Most likely my imagination but it seems that when we are in for people..or when we sign them...us fans seem to think that they are all suposed to be CL bonafide quality / level all the way through to the end of the 24 man squad? I'm not sure why that is, and even so, is it realistic?

Looking at united and Arsenal's squad for instance.....(intentionLLy skipped city but feel free to have a look there oo)

how many of their players would you take? no counting the best 3 players on each team?
....and how many of OUR players would they take to add to their star players?

i guess it could also com down to a matter of opinion / perspective, but i dont see their Others being all that good individually but in the system adopted by united these fring players become significant contirbutors.

The other day the idea of Jarvis and Fletcher was pretty much laughed of as not good enough for our team...as in they arent the ones to take them into CL? but why would they be? why instead of being the ones that get us there , why cant they be the squad players that significantly contribute to help the team in general get to the CL?

i think filling our team with squad players able to play well in a particular system is just as important as adding undisputed first teamers....think about it.........we keep yelling out for continuity....but when bale or lennon are injured / not playing well...who do we call on?

Niko (excellent football and professional ) and pienaar . The latter being a very interesting case....undoubtably a good player but just couldnt get going in ou enviroment in our system....but is thriving in everton's system.....quite possibly their star player but a squad player that was very unappreciated here (by many including myself)

Even crouch (as a squad player i dont see the need for the sale?)

all the best teams have only a few top of the range players but by and large the rest of the team is FILLED with average to good players, but players who work their role HARD and are focused .

one could even argue that the reason or at least a major for last seasons collapse was more to do with the lack of continuity in the system we played initially. personally speaking i think it was down to form and confidence more than anything else...but in games where we couldnt buy a chance it might have been worth while going back to a different system that has worked well in the past.

Other people's thoughts very much welcome
 
It depends on how the manager wants to utilise his squad.

- A first XI and a backup for each position.

- A core of 15-16 players that gets rotated and the rest are backup that get very little action.

Ignoring injuries the first option would get better results as the players know each other inside out, but you can't avoid injuries and that's why I think the second option is the way to go. It keeps the players fresher throughout the season, there's more competition for places, less vulnerable to injuries.
 
I'd certainly agree mate, but what we're talking about is not intentionally filling the squad with average players but finding support players that can step into a particular role. In the instance of Fletcher, what role would he be filling at Spurs. We have Sandro, Parker and Livermore all filling one of the CM spots and Modric/Hudd the other. The replacements that we need at the moment are for the glaring void left when one of our wingers goes injured and the team is immediately imabalanced. Do we bring in reserves to play a different system that is then drilled into the team as a second option, or do we get like for like?
 
WookieD said:
I'd certainly agree mate, but what we're talking about is not intentionally filling the squad with average players but finding support players that can step into a particular role. In the instance of Fletcher, what role would he be filling at Spurs. We have Sandro, Parker and Livermore all filling one of the CM spots and Modric/Hudd the other. The replacements that we need at the moment are for the glaring void left when one of our wingers goes injured and the team is immediately imabalanced. Do we bring in reserves to play a different system that is then drilled into the team as a second option, or do we get like for like?
Click to expand...


Erm.. Steven Fletcher? The striker at Wolves....


I assume he'd be a 3rd choice striker..
 
Last edited:
WookieD said:
I'd certainly agree mate, but what we're talking about is not intentionally filling the squad with average players but finding support players that can step into a particular role. In the instance of Fletcher, what role would he be filling at Spurs. We have Sandro, Parker and Livermore all filling one of the CM spots and Modric/Hudd the other. The replacements that we need at the moment are for the glaring void left when one of our wingers goes injured and the team is immediately imabalanced. Do we bring in reserves to play a different system that is then drilled into the team as a second option, or do we get like for like?
Click to expand...

i see you're point . first off forgive my laziness, i didnt mean fletcher at united but rather fletcher at wolves.

but even so , going back to united's fletcher...quite frankly when fit i would have him over parker and livermore
 
Spursalot said:
Erm.. Steven Fletcher? The striker at Wolves....


I assume he'd be a 3rd choice striker..
Click to expand...

Lol, didn't realise people had been talking about him. Then sure, a player like Fletcher would be an OK target. Though personally I think you need to balance it out with how you think the player can develop, not just how he plays at the moment. Stop gaps like Saha and utility players like Pienaar are all well and good, but you have to be thinking in the broader picture imo.

1) What is our footballing ethos?
2) How does that player fit into the current set-up?
3) How does that player potentially fit into future squads?

In essence though, I completely agree that no club apart from Emirates Marketing Project can try and buy 25 CL class players.Having said that, I think you can get a hell of a lot more creative than Steven Fletcher.
 
africanspurs said:
i see you're point . first off forgive my laziness, i didnt mean fletcher at united but rather fletcher at wolves.

but even so , going back to united's fletcher...quite frankly when fit i would have him over parker and livermore
Click to expand...

In which case you aren't buying a squad player. point was more that that is not a position that needs looking at unless a stunning opportunity arose that would be silly not to consider. Moving on from my answer above, we really need to box clever in terms of the strikers that we are looking at. Cosidering we barely ever line up with two strikers nowadays, we need a lot of versatility from our front man, regardless of where they sit in the pecking order. I don't really think Fletcher fits the bill. Somehow, you need to employ three strikers all good enough to compete with one another and convince them that they aren't coming to sit on the bench. How you do that is anyone's guess, but we've seen from Bent and Pav over recent years that just being a good striker at Spurs isn't enough, you need to fit our style in order to thrive. If we're just getting bums on seats then I'm happy to stick with Saha or get the Yak in (has been one of my favourite Prem strikers at points in his career, so that isn't a dig at him).
 
WookieD said:
In which case you aren't buying a squad player. point was more that that is not a position that needs looking at unless a stunning opportunity arose that would be silly not to consider. Moving on from my answer above, we really need to box clever in terms of the strikers that we are looking at. Cosidering we barely ever line up with two strikers nowadays, we need a lot of versatility from our front man, regardless of where they sit in the pecking order. I don't really think Fletcher fits the bill. Somehow, you need to employ three strikers all good enough to compete with one another and convince them that they aren't coming to sit on the bench. How you do that is anyone's guess, but we've seen from Bent and Pav over recent years that just being a good striker at Spurs isn't enough, you need to fit our style in order to thrive. If we're just getting bums on seats then I'm happy to stick with Saha or get the Yak in (has been one of my favourite Prem strikers at points in his career, so that isn't a dig at him).
Click to expand...

sandro is my starter. fletcher is the utility squad player? the one that would fit into the 16 (but in my case 18) man rotation you talked about

i actually rate saha as well. am not in any particular hurry to upgrade a players that didnt perform when EVERYONE wasnt performing. case in point pienaar
 
Our fringe players like Pavly, Bentley and Bale made the difference for us when we qualified to CL 2 years ago. But since then, Redknapp doesn't seem to like giving a chance to the fringe players unless the first team players are injured.
 
I think it's interesting that Park and Fletcher are probably two of United's most important players, yet very few people would get excited if you said that Spurs were in for them. Park has won more medals than the rest of our squad put together!
 
Squad players are clearly important, but if we are to compete with clubs with higher revenue streams than us or generous owners we can't afford to have our squad players costing us money in the transfer market.

Ideally our squad players should be those players from our own academy that ended up being not quite good enough or those younger players we sign with potential that don't develop as we had hoped. After some seasons as squad players they will most likely grow disillusioned with life at Spurs as a squad player and want a transfer, we can then make a decent profit. Manchester United do this regularly as clockwork. If our squad has holes in it that need filling by a squad player immediately and suitable younger players aren't available we should look to fill those positions with cheap players (like we have with Nelsen, Kranjcar, Pienaar etc). Wages are important here as well of course.

We can't really afford to have signings like Hutton (?ú9m), Gomes (?ú9m) and Bentley (?ú15m) end up as squad players and then be sold for quite a bit less than they were brought in for on a regular basis (all fees from memory, if they are off by a bit it doesn't really matter much).

One of the reasons why I think players like Hoilett, Diame and Fletcher if he ends up being fairly cheap would be good business. Even though those kinds of players shouldn't be the only business we do.
 
I guess ideally your first team players become your squad players as you continually upgrade.

I also think there's a bit of a difference between useful players who just are down the pecking order - Krancjar, Corluka, Livermore, possibly Pienaar and Bassong. These are who we should have been using more when we were cruising, so our core starting 11 had more left in the tank for the run in.

And then players who either don't fit into our way of playing or who you can never see playing for us ever again - Defoe, Dos Santos, Gomes, Bentley and Jenas. These are really just a waste of wages.


This summer though I wouldn't sign any more squad players though - the likes of Hoilett or Joe Cole etc. Instead I'd like us to sign first team players, who relegate current first teams e.g. Verts-Gallas, Remy-Lennon etc. My one exception would be signing a young like-for-like direct back-up for Ade (i.e. in place of Saha).
 
I think Fergie has always had the balance right. Not many of us could name HIS strongest team because he's always changing it around to keep players fresh and play certain players against certain teams. I remember hearing once he picks his teams up to two or three weeks before the match. If we had used our squad more often last season, not just when those brought in weren't match fit like in the Europa League, we would have secured third.

I've said a few times if Bassong had partnered Kaboul on a regular basis, instead of dropping King and Gallas into the team when they were nearly fit he'd have improved massively and with the two being good friends off the pitch, would have formed a good partnership. Kaboul is happier as the right of the two cbs, something he really is. Bassong offers balance with his left foot and an extra bit of pace. He was exposed when he wasn't match fit and got scrutinised for his mistakes. He was very solid in 09/10 and hasn't had a run of games since.
 
I must say I do not like the use of the term "fringe" player as it denotes a level of negativity, as if the player is really not important.

Talking about Fletcher however I was one of those players that did not take too kindly to us possibly signing him. While I am well aware that there is no guarantee that even a 30 goal a season striker will be a success for us I for one would like our strikers to have a more proven goal scoring pedigree.

The one exception that springs to mind would be if the player was twenty-two or less, in the belief that he has vast potential and will improve greatly. Sure if we signed Ade and then Fletcher as his “back up” I hate that phrase as well by the way, people may say it does not matter because he is “back up”. But I might be a little concerned if Ade is out for 4 weeks with a groin injury or if we have to rely on Fletcher for a month during the Nations Cup.

As Harry has made it clear this past season that his preference is to play a lone central striker most of the time I would rather that there not be a gulf in class between Ade (or his replacement) and his “back up”.

Fletcher may not be a bad player but I truly believe there are better options available if we are ready to be bold enough. Fletcher for ?ú10m or Patinkle Cisse for ?ú10m? Yeah that is a tough one.

By the way buying a striker simply because he is better than Saha does not impress me because Saha does not set a high bar
 
Gutter Boy said:
I guess ideally your first team players become your squad players as you continually upgrade.
Click to expand...

As a philosphy I actually agree with you. Unless we are buying young players (22 and under) with potential I would like us to focus on players that are are good enough to start or at the very least challenge immediately for a starting berth.





I also want us to to shy away from thirty something year old players for a moment. I do not think we need to buy any more players for experience, we have enough of that. If anything we lack enough players with a winning mental attitude. Our mental weakness revealed ourselves this season when we capitulated as well as at the end of the 2011 season
 
i think Gutter and Naija arent being realistic

for instance what would happen to the fist teamers that went to the bench? would they stay at the club? would they be motivated to play well for a cause? will they effect team morale?
 
africanspurs said:
i think Gutter and Naija arent being realistic

for instance what would happen to the fist teamers that went to the bench? would they stay at the club? would they be motivated to play well for a cause? will they effect team morale?
Click to expand...


This. Why would players who are good enough to play for a top four club's first team, suddenly be happy with bench roles?


They wouldn't.


I'm in the 'A squad of 15-16 quality players rotating, and backup as youth coming through' Side. You have far less to lose.



Plus if you continually demote first team members for new players, the wage bill is going to go through the roof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back