Centre back conundrum

[chicken 2,627]

Batth has an option for another year. I think Gibson will only still be here if he budges on wages.

Dimi and McCallum also out of contract...

Potentially leaves us with: Stacey, Fisher, Hanley, Duffy as our only 'experienced' first team squad members in defence.

A bit worrying when you consider if we are not promoted we could also lose players from midfield and up top.

[NewNestCarrow 192]

13 minutes ago, RobJames said:

I cannot recall any youth player being allowed to leave before he has been established in the first team - other than those thought 'not up to it'.

There is also the no small matter the contribution former youth players make to the team when they step up. Not to be sneezed at, some might suggest.

 

Plenty of players have moved on from NCFC because their route to the first team was blocked. We can start with Mumba and then go onto Earley, Morris, Famewo, Toffolo, McGeehan, Matthews, Oxborough & Joe Lewis.

It isn't just about talent, it is about how pushy players are for progress, or a logjam in their position ahead of them, or any number of other factors (see Andrew Omobamidele)

Selling Academy players is a very efficient fiscal exercise, and we need to be better at generating funds from the likes of Toffolo.

[chicken 2,627]

13 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

Plenty of players have moved on from NCFC because their route to the first team was blocked. We can start with Mumba and then go onto Earley, Morris, Famewo, Toffolo, McGeehan, Matthews, Oxborough & Joe Lewis.

It isn't just about talent, it is about how pushy players are for progress, or a logjam in their position ahead of them, or any number of other factors (see Andrew Omobamidele)

Selling Academy players is a very efficient fiscal exercise, and we need to be better at generating funds from the likes of Toffolo.

Loaning them too... I would say that Toffolo was so far behind us now it's not a great example. After all, since him, we have seen a good number of youngsters move on with good deals as part of the process.

 

[Top corner 228]

1 hour ago, RobJames said:

You have gone from contradiction to making up stuff. ..."Players who return from a long term injury don't just immediately start first team games ". No one stated they do. Though all evidence is that when players ARE fit they return to full first team play.

They do not return when less than 100%, so as to improve their fitness, that is an absurd thought. The reality is Hanley was judged to be fully fit and ready for first team games. However there is something amiss, as " he is not as explosive and as sharp as he was when he was on his best. "

You will note that Wagner is talking about individual training, away from the first team, not about giving him 'minutes' in the first team over a player who is fit. And it is that comment from Wagner that backs my thought about Hanley being woeful.

I haven't contradicted myself, I maybe haven't explained myself very well. I'll just finish with this, you must have heard former players mention that being fit to play, is different from being 100% match fit, you can't be instantly 100% match fit when you come back from injury, they need time to get up to speed. I hope you have a lovely evening. Take care.

[Mason 47 1,382]

When the nature of Hanleys injury was revealed, I said I didn't think he'd play much meaningful football for us again. With his age profile and style of play, such a bad non-contact injury was always going to carry the risk of a permanent drop in capability. Look at Zimmermann, another big lad who never got back to the same level unfortunately.

If he does then fantastic, he's been a great servant. However he has looked well off the Hanley we know and it was no surprise to me to hear they've taken the decision to take him out for the time being.

Big questions ahead in the summer, with 4 good prospects champing at the bit.

[chicken 2,627]

4 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

Big questions ahead in the summer, with 4 good prospects champing at the bit.

I would say potential prospects. When you look at the respective levels they are currently playing at, it may be hard to see just how well they will adapt in making the step up. It is promising so far, but it's also important we don't get too carried away. 

[Mason 47 1,382]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

I would say potential prospects. When you look at the respective levels they are currently playing at, it may be hard to see just how well they will adapt in making the step up. It is promising so far, but it's also important we don't get too carried away

I've not seen any of them (bar Warner & Tomkinson fleeting minutes in the first team) so I've no real gauge admittedly. However the fact they've been sent out on loan and are all at least playing tends to bode well.

The question is more over Hanley for me, anyway. If Gibson were to leave as I think is likely I reckon we'd be looking for another specialist CB. Duffy will get through another year (at this level anyway), that leaves GH third choice at best IMO with the four youth players potenitally snapping to get that shirt. Not to mention the question over McLean becoming a more regular fixture there.

Can we afford a high-earner club captain to be third or fourth choice? With one year on his contract and a rebuild on the way, I think he has big question marks now.

 

[Move Klose 303]

On 24/03/2024 at 14:22, RobJames said:

As elsewhere we have Jonathan Tomkinson, Emmanuel c and Jaden Warner and Brad Hills all out on loan, looking to grab a place should we still be in the Championship next season. Possibly one of Tompinkinson and Warner at this stage.

 Emmanuel Adegboyega could do a Chris Sutton and move up front, as he certainly seems to know where the goal is.The opposition goal that is.

Batth is out of contract and off. Gibson is out of contract but should stay. Hanley has a year left but has looked woeful since returning and is currently out of sorts. Duffy has another season in him. With Lungi I would suggest we have  three decent CB's so one of the above four will be given the chance to step up. As well as Lungi has done I would prefer to see him play further forward and only be used in the back line when others are not available.

Moving it a bit, I wonder if Reyes is up to replacing Gunn should he be offered a decent move. A brilliant season so far and as much as he clearly loves the club, I doubt anyone would begrudge him a hefty increase in his wages and a chance at the 'big time'.  Gunn has been the difference. With bench warmer Long we would probably be in the bottom half. Gunn gets my Player of the Season vote.

Batth will be gone, Gibson unless we go up will be gone. Id expect Sorensen to get a new deal. Duffy and Hanley will be here. But Hanley won't get any more contracts here after next season. So theres probably 1 spot open for one of the young guys.

More concerning is Rowe and Gunn having 12 months remaining of their contracts come this summer.

[Capt. Pants 4,246]

I suspect Gibson may get a contract offer and a likely downgrade in pay. Will he get a better offer elsewhere? Does he want to uproot his family?

Knapper wants to lower the average age of the squad which happen to be mostly CBs plus Barnes who seems to have picked up some unwelcome baggage.

I'm not convinced we will revert to youth in the centre of defence but Tomkinson needs to do something really being a bit more senior, which might mean the rest are out on loan again.

 

[chicken 2,627]

14 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

I've not seen any of them (bar Warner & Tomkinson fleeting minutes in the first team) so I've no real gauge admittedly. However the fact they've been sent out on loan and are all at least playing tends to bode well.

The question is more over Hanley for me, anyway. If Gibson were to leave as I think is likely I reckon we'd be looking for another specialist CB. Duffy will get through another year (at this level anyway), that leaves GH third choice at best IMO with the four youth players potenitally snapping to get that shirt. Not to mention the question over McLean becoming a more regular fixture there.

Can we afford a high-earner club captain to be third or fourth choice? With one year on his contract and a rebuild on the way, I think he has big question marks now.

 

I would like to think that two of those youngsters can step up and we'd have two more senior pros to guide them.

Much like Hanley and Zimmermann were that for Godfrey. Somewhat Klose too but he was oit injured for much of that time.

In an ideal world, two youngsters can step up, if we remain in this league, with the other two loaned again, maybe until Jan so some juggling can occur too.

If Hanley's injury has scuppered his levels, it may depend upon if we can get him off the books, or loan him out. You'd hope if that's the case, Gibson could be persuaded to stay.

If we ho up... who knows.

[chicken 2,627]

58 minutes ago, Move Klose said:

Batth will be gone, Gibson unless we go up will be gone. Id expect Sorensen to get a new deal. Duffy and Hanley will be here. But Hanley won't get any more contracts here after next season. So theres probably 1 spot open for one of the young guys.

More concerning is Rowe and Gunn having 12 months remaining of their contracts come this summer.

I'm not convinced we'll offer Sorensen a new deal. It will certainly come down to the league we're in and where we find ourselves short, being that he can cover left back and centre back.

That said, back up is it for him... and in a sense, if nothing changes, do you keep a player that has never been first team material when everyone is fit, blocking a potential spot for a younger player, or wages for a better pro to come in on?

Numbers wise, sure, makes some sense. In terms of taking us forward, he doesn't really. I can invisage another bit of a clearout.

[RobJames 881]

50 minutes ago, Move Klose said:

Batth will be gone, Gibson unless we go up will be gone. Id expect Sorensen to get a new deal. Duffy and Hanley will be here. But Hanley won't get any more contracts here after next season. So theres probably 1 spot open for one of the young guys.

More concerning is Rowe and Gunn having 12 months remaining of their contracts come this summer.

The age was always going to be lowered, as the likes of Batth, Forshaw, Barnes and Duffy were only ever stop gaps to steady the ship, so to speak. Though neither of the first two has done any steadying, or playing come to that.

It has to be that whether any of the 'youths' are up to Championship football, not just that we have a space that needs filling. It could be that one is left footed and able to switch the LB, which would cover for the departing Gino. But as said above, they are only playing L1/L2 football, so maybe another year on loan would better suit.  It would see the departure f both Hanley and Duffy and open up a couple of places - assuming we are not in the PL, or everything then goes out of the window.

I suspect Rowe will go in the summer.  His agent will be advising him to turn down a new contract, and unfortunately him being out injured has taken the spotlight off him. However, no fan could have predicted his incredible performances this season, and thankfully we have now hit the ground running so, results wise he has not been missed.  The transfer fee will come in handy if we can continue to find the likes of Nunez, Sara and Sainz. Products of, I have no doubt, and extensive scouting network - which doesn't come cheap.

Angus is a City lad, so what happens will be done amicably I am sure. If we are still in the Championship he will get offers from the PL. I would love him to stay, but the bright lights will be beckoning, so good luck lad. The question is will Reyes be up to taking the number 1 spot.

 

[RobJames 881]

16 minutes ago, chicken said:

I'm not convinced we'll offer Sorensen a new deal. It will certainly come down to the league we're in and where we find ourselves short, being that he can cover left back and centre back.

That said, back up is it for him... and in a sense, if nothing changes, do you keep a player that has never been first team material when everyone is fit, blocking a potential spot for a younger player, or wages for a better pro to come in on?

Numbers wise, sure, makes some sense. In terms of taking us forward, he doesn't really. I can invisage another bit of a clearout.

The question is would we take him on a free ? He has certainly looked better than many (Fassnacht) and has been excellent at CB.  Any clear out will mean cost. Players maybe signed on a free, but that is because their wages are high - something I suspect with Sainz.

All four will be back in the summer and the club will know if Gibson and Sorensen are staying, and what the state of play is with Hanley. Montoia looks to be 'knocking on the door' and with Fisher improving we have enough  'young uns' but are they ready for the rough and tumble of the Championship ?

[chicken 2,627]

1 hour ago, RobJames said:

The question is would we take him on a free ? He has certainly looked better than many (Fassnacht) and has been excellent at CB.  Any clear out will mean cost. Players maybe signed on a free, but that is because their wages are high - something I suspect with Sainz.

All four will be back in the summer and the club will know if Gibson and Sorensen are staying, and what the state of play is with Hanley. Montoia looks to be 'knocking on the door' and with Fisher improving we have enough  'young uns' but are they ready for the rough and tumble of the Championship ?

Freebies aren't always about wages. Sometimes it's about player ambition and happiness. Zimmermann is a great example.

Wages are also relative. Sainz might be well within our wage structure. He had a relegation release clause. Put it another way, someone might be the highest paid player at say, S****horpe, but might be ten grand under our highest earner.

Freebies are rarely as free as they seem, but my point stands, Sorensen will be on first team squad wages. At some point he will go. He's not a first choice player. If we sign players in his positions who are better specialists, do we keep him as 3rd or 4th choice?

Right now, he is 3rd choice left back, 5th choice centre back, 4th/5th choice central midfielder when everyone is fit.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

23 hours ago, Top corner said:

I haven't contradicted myself, I maybe haven't explained myself very well. I'll just finish with this, you must have heard former players mention that being fit to play, is different from being 100% match fit, you can't be instantly 100% match fit when you come back from injury, they need time to get up to speed. I hope you have a lovely evening. Take care.

Especially in this side which is one of the fittest I've seen. Sainz was fit in the autumn but having missed pre-season was not really fit enough to start for a long time. We are seeing the benefits of him being fit now and he can last 90 no problems. Sarge still has to be managed because he missed months. We are seeing the benefit of that now despite the angst when he's subbed. Stacey is and abosolute fitness machine. As is McClean and Sara. But players can't get fitter than the fittest they can be so you can see why Giannoulis is preferred to McCullum who just can't seem to attain the same fitness levels. He's not lazy.

All our centre backs have had spells on the sidelines but it's a position that doesn't quite require the same levels as the ones I just mentioned but even so Hanley had no preseason and I can't see where his levels can be anywhere near his best.

[Top corner 228]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Especially in this side which is one of the fittest I've seen. Sainz was fit in the autumn but having missed pre-season was not really fit enough to start for a long time. We are seeing the benefits of him being fit now and he can last 90 no problems. Sarge still has to be managed because he missed months. We are seeing the benefit of that now despite the angst when he's subbed. Stacey is and abosolute fitness machine. As is McClean and Sara. But players can't get fitter than the fittest they can be so you can see why Giannoulis is preferred to McCullum who just can't seem to attain the same fitness levels. He's not lazy.

All our centre backs have had spells on the sidelines but it's a position that doesn't quite require the same levels as the ones I just mentioned but even so Hanley had no preseason and I can't see where his levels can be anywhere near his best.

Exactly 

[RobJames 881]

4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Especially in this side which is one of the fittest I've seen. Sainz was fit in the autumn but having missed pre-season was not really fit enough to start for a long time. We are seeing the benefits of him being fit now and he can last 90 no problems. Sarge still has to be managed because he missed months. We are seeing the benefit of that now despite the angst when he's subbed. Stacey is and abosolute fitness machine. As is McClean and Sara. But players can't get fitter than the fittest they can be so you can see why Giannoulis is preferred to McCullum who just can't seem to attain the same fitness levels. He's not lazy.

All our centre backs have had spells on the sidelines but it's a position that doesn't quite require the same levels as the ones I just mentioned but even so Hanley had no preseason and I can't see where his levels can be anywhere near his best.

eh ?

Hanley looks to be suffering from the long teem damage to his Achilles. Nothing to do with fitness. The pre season games are about getting to play as a squad and VERY little to do with fitness.  Given that they are playing games it is assumed the coaches have judged the players involved are fit.

Pre season games are played at a more 'leisurely' pace so the idea that those games would be anything to do with fitness is absurd. That is done at Colney, away from those games. I don't remember  Gunn being asked to play the last 10 minutes or so of a game to get 'match fit'. He was ruled fit and started as do others returning back.

So Sainz got fit at Colney but Hanley was not able to, so played when he was not fully fit.  Others might suggest it was not any fitness problem with Sainz but merely one of adapting to the English game as so many slow starters for us have been.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

I’m sure you’re right Rob. But just in case I’ll still trust my eyes and the way the players are used and minutes managed 👍

[RobJames 881]

19 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I’m sure you’re right Rob. But just in case I’ll still trust my eyes and the way the players are used and minutes managed 👍

err yes. Players are withdrawn quite often as they are 'shagged out' (Barnes), or to avoid over use/injury etc. That goes without saying.

However what is being argued here is that players are on the pitch to get 'match fit' ie they are not up to it. Whereas the reality is the opposite.

Hanley is clearly not up to it at the moment. Maybe it is his Achilles playing up. I don't know. What I do know is that to get him 'match fit' he is not being given 'minutes'. Quite the opposite, as Wagener stated "" he is not as explosive and as sharp as he was when he was on his best. "  so. it is back to Colney, and in his case specialist training to get him back to that level.

At Colney, not in a first team game as is being claimed

[Capt. Pants 4,246]

Arguably this is a different approach to Barnes and Sargent who were allowed to regain fitness in the first team, but I guess they backed it up with decent performances on the pitch whereas GH has looked pretty poor really. Also with unfit defenders generally you are more likely to concede.