8 New Players

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]Not sure we need that many tbh. I''d rather we concentrated on getting 2 or 3 real quality players like RVW. Continuity is important and signing 8 players, unless many of them are u21, is going to mean a fair bit of last season''s 25 man squad will be off.[/quote]

I would disagree here?...the biggest reason as to why we tailed off so badly in the 2nd half of the season was through the fact that although Hughton named a squad of ''25'' in January...to all intents and purposes ,we were actually running with a squad of about 16.

rightly or wrongly Hughton had decided that a large proportion of our squad were simply not good enough, either to be in a matchday squad or to come off the bench and make a difference in a game. We were threrefore left flogging the same players using the same tactics week in ,week out, with no alternatives.

Our priority is ,come 1st Sept to have a full list of 25 players who are ''all'' capable of doing a job at Premiership level when called upon.

[/quote]I disagree. Far better to maintain a team spirit with a smaller nucleus of quality players than just fill 25 places for the sake of it. I''d rather have a few more top quality players that can play regularly than a lot of extras that never make the match day squad. Also, keeping a smaller squad will allow us to pay better and attract quality rather than average down the wages and keep ''dross'' that will never play a Prem match in a 25 man squad. [/quote]

all fine in principle but a few injuries or suspensions down the line and what then?......or not having the real ''quality'' to come of the bench to affect a game if we''re behind?

we must never,never again be in a situation where we''re playing the likes of Harry Kane up front on his own in a Premiership match.

[/quote]Exactly my point. We should have invested in a quality striker last season rather than bringing in an untried youngster at the beginning of the season. Jackson, Kane, Surman in particular were all lightweights so should not even have been in the 25 man squad IMO. Hopefully, finances now mean far better permanent acquisitions and better quality loans if necessary to cover injuries. We do not need 25. Even Rodgers at Liverpool has stated they will operate on a squad of around 19. That makes sense to me.  

[Highland Canary 76]

Well said Paul.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

For crying out loud and for what feels like the hundredth time, we tried to buy quality strikers last summer but the deals didn''t come off.

You can''t force clubs to sell strikers and to keep harping on implying that the club didn''t bother or chose not to try and get a striker last summer is ridiculous.

[Evesham Canary 0]

The 25 man squad last year included Fox (no league starts), Lappin (no league appearances), Tierney (1 League Start) plus the likes of Barnett, Jackson & Surman who made a handful of starts and in the case of Barnett & Jackson spent most of the season sat on the bench.

Therefore, 19 players were essentially enough last year.

The flip side is that we have generally been reasonably lucky with injuries over the last couple of years - Ruddy was a notable exception last year. The likes of Surman & Whitaker are long spells out and there were absences of a few weeks for the likes of Turner, Martin, Pilks & Tettey.

Would we have wanted a Barnett or Jackson having to play 15 games due to injuries?

Hopefully one or two of the kids may step up as the season progresses to fill out the squad but I would want at least 22 players who we feel can play for an extended period in the prem league. Generally you wil have at least a couple of players unavailable for every game but we need to cover for the fact that we might not as lucky with injuries as we were last year.

[JayNCFC 14]

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]Not sure we need that many tbh. I''d rather we concentrated on getting 2 or 3 real quality players like RVW. Continuity is important and signing 8 players, unless many of them are u21, is going to mean a fair bit of last season''s 25 man squad will be off.[/quote]

I would disagree here?...the biggest reason as to why we tailed off so badly in the 2nd half of the season was through the fact that although Hughton named a squad of ''25'' in January...to all intents and purposes ,we were actually running with a squad of about 16.

rightly or wrongly Hughton had decided that a large proportion of our squad were simply not good enough, either to be in a matchday squad or to come off the bench and make a difference in a game. We were threrefore left flogging the same players using the same tactics week in ,week out, with no alternatives.

Our priority is ,come 1st Sept to have a full list of 25 players who are ''all'' capable of doing a job at Premiership level when called upon.

[/quote]Completely agree, at the end of season away fans event McNally stated that a large part of the squad needed improvement, hence the fact that almost all free resources are for first team players - a new stand won''t keep you in the prem.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]Not sure we need that many tbh. I''d rather we concentrated on getting 2 or 3 real quality players like RVW. Continuity is important and signing 8 players, unless many of them are u21, is going to mean a fair bit of last season''s 25 man squad will be off.[/quote]

I would disagree here?...the biggest reason as to why we tailed off so badly in the 2nd half of the season was through the fact that although Hughton named a squad of ''25'' in January...to all intents and purposes ,we were actually running with a squad of about 16.

rightly or wrongly Hughton had decided that a large proportion of our squad were simply not good enough, either to be in a matchday squad or to come off the bench and make a difference in a game. We were threrefore left flogging the same players using the same tactics week in ,week out, with no alternatives.

Our priority is ,come 1st Sept to have a full list of 25 players who are ''all'' capable of doing a job at Premiership level when called upon.

[/quote]I disagree. Far better to maintain a team spirit with a smaller nucleus of quality players than just fill 25 places for the sake of it. I''d rather have a few more top quality players that can play regularly than a lot of extras that never make the match day squad. Also, keeping a smaller squad will allow us to pay better and attract quality rather than average down the wages and keep ''dross'' that will never play a Prem match in a 25 man squad. [/quote]

all fine in principle but a few injuries or suspensions down the line and what then?......or not having the real ''quality'' to come of the bench to affect a game if we''re behind?

we must never,never again be in a situation where we''re playing the likes of Harry Kane up front on his own in a Premiership match.

[/quote]Exactly my point. We should have invested in a quality striker last season rather than bringing in an untried youngster at the beginning of the season. Jackson, Kane, Surman in particular were all lightweights so should not even have been in the 25 man squad IMO. Hopefully, finances now mean far better permanent acquisitions and better quality loans if necessary to cover injuries. We do not need 25. Even Rodgers at Liverpool has stated they will operate on a squad of around 19. That makes sense to me.   [/quote]I must have missed the attempts to sign Gary Hooper in January.Honestly will you EVER praise the club that you claim to support?

[Monty13 2,229]

Not really sure why Surman is getting written off by some, I think he was sorely missed last season when Pilks was injured, he would have offered something different to the traditional winger. I might be imagining it but I also thought Hughton said in an interview that he would have played a big part if not injured? (but who knows what a big part would have been, I''m sure Becchio played a big part...)

Butterfield is on a long contract and is one for the future I would imagine, can see a season long loan in the offing. Would make little sense to get rid without a substantial offer which seems unlikely.

Fox looks gone from the little game time he got, have Vaughan, Ayala and Barnett impressed on their loan spells? Who knows the managers thoughts, but those 4 for me look the most likely to be shipped out and are probably only still here as they are under contract.

If those 4 did fail to make the 25 by whatever means, and assuming 2 of the potential 8 are already there (RVW & Garrido) then 4 over age and 2 under 21 is not an unreasonable assessment of our potential recruitment and wouldn''t upset the team spirit too much as the vast majority (if not all) of the players who played more than a bit part last season will still be here.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Grant Holts 3 year contract"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]Not sure we need that many tbh. I''d rather we concentrated on getting 2 or 3 real quality players like RVW. Continuity is important and signing 8 players, unless many of them are u21, is going to mean a fair bit of last season''s 25 man squad will be off.[/quote]

I would disagree here?...the biggest reason as to why we tailed off so badly in the 2nd half of the season was through the fact that although Hughton named a squad of ''25'' in January...to all intents and purposes ,we were actually running with a squad of about 16.

rightly or wrongly Hughton had decided that a large proportion of our squad were simply not good enough, either to be in a matchday squad or to come off the bench and make a difference in a game. We were threrefore left flogging the same players using the same tactics week in ,week out, with no alternatives.

Our priority is ,come 1st Sept to have a full list of 25 players who are ''all'' capable of doing a job at Premiership level when called upon.

[/quote]I disagree. Far better to maintain a team spirit with a smaller nucleus of quality players than just fill 25 places for the sake of it. I''d rather have a few more top quality players that can play regularly than a lot of extras that never make the match day squad. Also, keeping a smaller squad will allow us to pay better and attract quality rather than average down the wages and keep ''dross'' that will never play a Prem match in a 25 man squad. [/quote]

all fine in principle but a few injuries or suspensions down the line and what then?......or not having the real ''quality'' to come of the bench to affect a game if we''re behind?

we must never,never again be in a situation where we''re playing the likes of Harry Kane up front on his own in a Premiership match.

[/quote]Exactly my point. We should have invested in a quality striker last season rather than bringing in an untried youngster at the beginning of the season. Jackson, Kane, Surman in particular were all lightweights so should not even have been in the 25 man squad IMO. Hopefully, finances now mean far better permanent acquisitions and better quality loans if necessary to cover injuries. We do not need 25. Even Rodgers at Liverpool has stated they will operate on a squad of around 19. That makes sense to me.   [/quote]I must have missed the attempts to sign Gary Hooper in January.Honestly will you EVER praise the club that you claim to support? [/quote]Did I ever say that we didn''t try to sign someone ?  The fact is that we didn''t try hard enough, because we failed, and ended up with a lightweight Harry Kane. Let''s try harder this season to get proven quality !!!  Hooper is not proven quality though IMO.

[JayNCFC 14]

So when Cody was an unknown quantity you insisted he got a chance, yet Hooper who has played at all levels up to (maybe beyond in CL) Premier League, your unwilling to risk it?I am all for letting people have their say, but if you want to live by the sword and all that...

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Monty13"]Not really sure why Surman is getting written off by some, I think he was sorely missed last season when Pilks was injured, he would have offered something different to the traditional winger. I might be imagining it but I also thought Hughton said in an interview that he would have played a big part if not injured? (but who knows what a big part would have been, I''m sure Becchio played a big part...)

Butterfield is on a long contract and is one for the future I would imagine, can see a season long loan in the offing. Would make little sense to get rid without a substantial offer which seems unlikely.

Fox looks gone from the little game time he got, have Vaughan, Ayala and Barnett impressed on their loan spells? Who knows the managers thoughts, but those 4 for me look the most likely to be shipped out and are probably only still here as they are under contract.

If those 4 did fail to make the 25 by whatever means, and assuming 2 of the potential 8 are already there (RVW & Garrido) then 4 over age and 2 under 21 is not an unreasonable assessment of our potential recruitment and wouldn''t upset the team spirit too much as the vast majority (if not all) of the players who played more than a bit part last season will still be here.[/quote]

I think it''s more that he lacks pace and we could do with a class winger with genuine pace. So, the argument goes, Surman should be offloaded to free up a space in the squad. Myself, if someone has to go, then I would keep Surman and ditch E. Bennett, who is quick enough but lacks PL quality.

[chicken 0]

Paul Moy said: "Exactly my point. We should have invested in a quality striker last season rather than bringing in an untried youngster at the beginning of the season. Jackson, Kane, Surman in particular were all lightweights so should not even have been in the 25 man squad IMO."

Not sure your opinion is that highly regarded by many anymore, and a statement like that is hardly going to improve that.

Lightweight? Surman isn''t for sure, he has been injured this season so absent is probably a better word. As for Jackson and Kane, one is but a lad and probably does have some ''filling out'' to do. The other has held his own at times but is more let down by other aspects of his game.

At this point I want to play the following card: Paul Moy loves Cody Mac. You argued, and continued to argue that he was better than Chris Martin, SImeon Jackson and other players we had at the time. Talk about lightweights - he is clearly league 1 / league 2 material.

Paul Moy also said: "Hopefully, finances now mean far better permanent acquisitions and better quality loans if necessary to cover injuries."

You understand that we can''t sign players on loan at the drop of a hat anymore? We are restricted.

Paul Moy also typed: "We do not need 25. Even Rodgers at Liverpool has stated they will operate on a squad of around 19. That makes sense to me."

If Rogers actually said that he is a fool. In the lower leagues you might have been able to get away with that in the past but not now. Had they not have signed Sturridge they would have been stuffed when Suarez started biting people.

Not only that, you can name a bench of something like 7 now can''t you? 19 is only a player more, who at a guess would be your third choice keeper. If you only had 19 players and had an injury and a suspension you would be forced to call upon one of your U21''s who may not be up to it at this point.

Also, the modern game requires flexibility in your squad. Against the likes of Man U and Arsenal this season we played a much more defensively tighter set up, with a lot of hard work closing down the ball and pressing them. In those sort of games you want to perhaps be able to play Tettey and Johnson together to stop their supply lines and rely on getting the ball to the wingers to then try and create chances for the likes of Holt.

Against the teams that have just come up, you may want to play ball a little more, perhaps rotate Tettey out for Howson. Or change the formation to a 4-3-3 or a diamond midfield and use Hoolahan at the tip of the formation.

If you play one formation and are rather set in your ways, you simply have to have the best players to be able to stick at it all season and expect to get somewhere.

Look at Man Utd. This season they have played with one up front, two upfront and three upfront. They have played Rooney as a striker, a winger and in the hole.

Sometimes you need to change things to try and freshen them up.

You don''t just want players in the squad to make up numbers, you want them to put pressure on the other players, offer you something different and to give you a dilemma. If they are on the bench you want them to be able to perform a couple of roles just in case, or in case their specific skills could be deployed to good effect in one area of the pitch.

Jackson for example, for all of his pace, could not play out wide. Hoolahan can play wide, in the hole or as a ''shadow striker''. Even Holt has played out wide for us to cover injury.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="paul moy"]

  The fact is that we didn''t try hard enough, because we failed,

 [/quote]

Would you care to justify this outrageous claim with some evidence ?

 

[Monty13 2,229]

I agree Purple, he lacks pace but Surman is more of a Left Attacking Midfielder than a winger, in that respect he offers something different, he links well with the guy in the hole and as he doesn''t hug the touchline he gets in good shooting positions.

I''d also agree, harsh as it is, and because I really like the guy and feel he didn''t get a fair chance last season, but if we are upping the quality of our pacey wingers, Bennett looks the obvious one to miss out on a squad place, especially if 2 arrive.

[flying high up in the sky! 1]

Moy : we failed. We finished 11th. The players staff and board did a great job. Discussion over.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Monty13 wrote the following post at 17/06/2013 11:51 PM:

I agree Purple, he lacks pace but Surman is more of a Left Attacking Midfielder than a winger, in that respect he offers something different, he links well with the guy in the hole and as he doesn''t hug the touchline he gets in good shooting positions.

I fully agree. Surman should never be described as a winger, he is a wide midfield player.

[Tumbleweed 106]

So long as we bring in a good strong pacy attacking midfielder I''ll be happy. That is the area most crying out for real strengthening. I''m not so fussed about the forwards. I may be in a  minority but I like Vaughan and his loan spell seemed to be very successful. With better supply and more attacking options through the middle I do think we already have a reasonably competitive strikeforce, but Becchio should have had more game time at the end of last season.

I''m not a fan of Bunn though, and my second priority would be better cover for Ruddy unless the staff believe Rudd is now ready for this job.

My third priority would be an upgrade to central defence, another Bassong would be immense, Turner did very well after a shaky start but other than those two we can definitely make improvements.

My last priority would be to not bring in too many different faces, just better quality in selected key positions. I do think that team spirit and understanding are important and I''d like the team to gel fast rather than be introducing themselves during the walk down the tunnel. Keep some money available for January, prices are higher then and we may need an emergency signing or two depending on how things go.

[birchfest 397]

8 makes sense, we''ve let go of 10 and probably will sell Barnett, unlikely to see Ayala and Vaughans future is up in the air. We have that core group but no real serious competition for places!

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

It depends on whether the 8 would include both RvW and Garrido then, but IMO these are the priorities:

ACM: Toivonen or another (To replace Fox)

LB: Echiejile?, Olsson?, Rose? (To replace Tierney)

S: Hooper or another if Vaughan isn''t retained (To replace Jackson)

LM: Capel (in my dreams) or Redmond (To use Camp''s squad place or to replace Surman)

CB: To replace Barnett if Ayala doesn''t suffice

Of the current 5 squad places available, that would make 5 plus RvW and Garrido for a possible total of 7 coming in. Redmond is under 21, so there would still be one place left. Beyond that would be looking at players like Butterfield, Surman and Holt. My concern would be that as more players are brought in, the budget gets stretched further and further as quality is compromised unless there''s more money available than we have been thinking.

[Joanna Grey 0]

By way of confirmation;

Chris Goreham ‏@CGoreham 1h

At @TheBaseCT excellent charity ball on Saturday @davidmcnally62 told the crowd that #ncfc want to sign ''between 5 & 8 players'' this summer

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Based on Chicken''s list  and assuming RVW, Garrido and Toivonen all form part of McNally''s eight:GK: Ruddy, Bunn, Steer (who is under 21 and so doesn''t count) in place of Rudd.[/quote]

 

That is just spooky.[:D]

[Lets be aving you! 0]

"davidmcnally62 told the crowd that #ncfc want to sign ''between 5 & 8 players'' this summer"

 

Big difference between the ''eight'' that the OP mentioned and the lower limit of ''five'' that McNally is now cited as quoting.

 

If these figures do not include Garrido and RVW, that means between 3 and 6 further players.

[Joanna Grey 0]

LBAY wrote - "If these figures do not include Garrido and RVW, that means between 3 and 6 further players."

No, that means between 5 and 8 new players. I''m sure that McNally sees RVW and Garrido as having already signed.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

The Football Club have been saying for several weeks now , as part of the negotiations with sponsors, that their intention is to sign players, and they have mentioned seven or so on several occassions. NCFC have also said that most of these will be "overseas" players and certain private conversations support this, where measures are put in place to facilitate such players. Don''t forget the old way was to put most of them into a certain Hotel on the A140, or if they were lucky rent them a house, but the more discerning footballer needs somewhere to park his four cars.

 

Now whether this means that we definitely sign these players is another matter , but it is clear that a lot of work/ thought has been ,and is, going into it.

 

Equally, there is no doubt that some of the finance to do all of this does rely on moving some players on. Most of the names mentioned here fall into that catagory I would imagine.

 

For the record RVW will not be staying at "the Hotel" and nor will any of his cars. [;)] 

 

[Joanna Grey 0]

Are you an Estate Agent? ;-)

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Lets be aving you"]

"davidmcnally62 told the crowd that #ncfc want to sign ''between 5 & 8 players'' this summer"

 

Big difference between the ''eight'' that the OP mentioned and the lower limit of ''five'' that McNally is now cited as quoting.

 

If these figures do not include Garrido and RVW, that means between 3 and 6 further players.

[/quote]

 

Oh for a bit of clarity. That is ambiguous. Does "this summer" include RVW and Garrido, or neither, or Garrido but not RVW, since he was supposedly part of January''s budget...[;)]Eight PLUS RVW and Garrido, making 10,  seems unlikely. But as few as three (the five including them) also unlikely.

[Gaz06 0]

dream on :D 2 more max!

[Joanna Grey 0]

Manchester Canary wrote - "dream on :D 2 more max!"

Plain English a bit hard to fathom out?

[Gaz06 0]

My girlfriend (a deluded Wigan fan) thinks its hilarious to go on this forum and wind people up!

[Morisons Prozac 0]

Wigan have fans?!

[Lets be aving you! 0]

"Oh for a bit of clarity. That is ambiguous. Does "this summer" include RVW and Garrido, or neither, or Garrido but not RVW, since he was supposedly part of January''s budget...Eight PLUS RVW and Garrido, making 10, seems unlikely. But as few as three (the five including them) also unlikely."

 

I couldn''t have put it better.