The Arbroath Thread

[Trogdor]

I just saw Adams goal from the weekend. Fucking hell, it's a rocket. When I read about the sub goalie scoring I thought it would be a sclaff but that's a worldie and goal of season contender. 

[1320Lichtie]

16 hours ago, ExiledLichtie said:

Are people writing off Balde and Stowe already?  Balde looked really good last season, and we've yet to see how he does in a Jim McIntyre team.  I think now we have a new broom, it might be time to think about what sort of club we are going to be.  Under the previous management, anyone under 27 simply stagnated.  We saw players have bright starts and then peter out to nothing.  We had clubs (allegedly) unwilling to loan us players due to the style of football.  

The fate of Stowe, Steele and Balde will give a good clue of who we want to be.  I don't think we can expect a player like Stowe in particular (and also the other two) to jump straight into a championship team and be players of the year.  We need to give players time.  Someone like Steele, you'd expect to be an understudy to the main defence, getting the occasional start, and making regular sub appearances in season one, before kicking on in season 2.  Same for someone like Stowe, making the step up from the lowland league.  So are we going to take these players, and give them a season to bed in and watch them develop?  Or are we going to be a retirement home for ready made players to do a couple years of graft, with the oldest average team in the division?  

It will be interesting to see which way the board and McIntyre go over the next window!

 

 

 

Yeah I think both Balde and Stowe have potential and are definitely worth keeping around.
 

I think Dow is leaving at the end of the season and will possibly stop playing. Jacobs has played a part and to be fair to him he’s done really well but again that’s an area I would be looking for something a bit different as there’s plenty in there when Balde returns. Turan I think we need to improve in that area he’s not really found a position. 
 

I would also keep Lyon he seems really solid. 
 

Seeing clubs announce stuff already. Hope we get some business done too. Also would love it if McIntyre could persuade Hylton to stay but I feel like he is going to leave for full time football and that lifestyle somewhere closer to home. Which is ashame. 
 

Looking forward to seeing what Jim does and Innes Murray in maroon and hope there is some more. I think ToB and Little might be out for a wee while yet so centre half and defence very important as is a few options up the other end. 

[SimonLichtie]

1 minute ago, 1320Lichtie said:

Yeah I think both Balde and Stowe have potential and are definitely worth keeping around.

I think Dow is leaving at the end of the season and will possibly stop playing. Jacobs has played a part and to be fair to him he’s done really well but again that’s an area I would be looking for something a bit different as there’s plenty in there when Balde returns. Turan I think we need to improve in that area he’s not really found a position. 

I would also keep Lyon he seems really solid. 

Lookng forward to seeing what Jim does and Innes Murray in maroon and hope there is some more. I think ToB and Little might be out for a wee while yet so centre half and defence very important as is a few options up the other end. 

We've currently got a squad of 22 - people have to leave in order to bring in the 4-5 players we need. We can't have both - either people have to go out on loan or permanently, or we can't add much at all this window.

[lichtie23]

Stowe had the chance to impress against Spartans and was absolutely anonymous. He’s shown me absolutely nothing unfortunately. The guy has jumped up 4/5 leagues and it’s clearly showed. 

[razamanaz]

2 minutes ago, lichtie23 said:

Stowe had the chance to impress against Spartans and was absolutely anonymous. He’s shown me absolutely nothing unfortunately. The guy has jumped up 4/5 leagues and it’s clearly showed. 

Always thought it was a step too far - will take him back at Camelon in a heartbeat

[1320Lichtie]

8 minutes ago, SimonLichtie said:

We've currently got a squad of 22 - people have to leave in order to bring in the 4-5 players we need. We can't have both - either people have to go out on loan or permanently, or we can't add much at all this window.

I think the 3 that should leave are the people I have mentioned. Squad of 22 but atleast 2 long term injuries in there. Also Hylton more than likely away as well. 

Edited January 1 by 1320Lichtie

[ExiledLichtie]

 

9 minutes ago, SimonLichtie said:

We've currently got a squad of 22 - people have to leave in order to bring in the 4-5 players we need. We can't have both - either people have to go out on loan or permanently, or we can't add much at all this window.

Current rules allow for a bench of 9 players, right?  So that's 20 players for each matchday squad.    A squad of 22 means that if just 3 players are unavailable for any reason, we can't fill our bench.

[SimonLichtie]

Just now, ExiledLichtie said:

 

Current rules allow for a bench of 9 players, right?  So that's 20 players for each matchday squad.    A squad of 22 means that if just 3 players are unavailable for any reason, we can't fill our bench.

How big do you think our squad should be?  

I'd much rather have 3 or 4 players of a good enough level on the bench to come off it than fill it with 9 bodies for the sake of it. I'd much rather guys like Stowe were getting regular games in order to improve than sitting on our bench every week behind 3 or 4 other guys, just waiting to potentially get a couple of 15 minute run outs between now and the end of the season.

Budget wise it's obviously very basic - the bigger the squad, the larger the spread wage wise. Spread yourself thin and you'll miss out on players as you can't afford to sign quality due to an excess of bench filler taking up part of the budget.

We've had our worst season injury wise in a decade, coupled with the fact we currently have 2 of our squad out on loan. Having those two loan players available for our match day squad would've helped in the past month, but again, budget. If Scott Allan was at the club, we'd probably need two other players out to balance things. The one that is really inexcusable is Balde, as his leaving outside the window and not being replaced was obviously nothing to do with budget at all.

I guess another way to look at it - would you rather 2/3 players of the level of Bird/ Hylton came in this month (in the right positions) or 5/6 players of the level of Jacobs were signed? You can't have the quality players and the squad to cover every possible eventuality.

[relichtie]

It would be better to have too many players than too few as Saturday showed. To be unable to fill the bench, albeit injuries have compounded the issue, is imo not acceptable for a professional football club. Only downside is trying to keep all those left out happy, but that is why managers are there. 

[ExiledLichtie]

10 minutes ago, SimonLichtie said:

How big do you think our squad should be?  

I'd much rather have 3 or 4 players of a good enough level on the bench to come off it than fill it with 9 bodies for the sake of it. I'd much rather guys like Stowe were getting regular games in order to improve than sitting on our bench every week behind 3 or 4 other guys, just waiting to potentially get a couple of 15 minute run outs between now and the end of the season.

Budget wise it's obviously very basic - the bigger the squad, the larger the spread wage wise. Spread yourself thin and you'll miss out on players as you can't afford to sign quality due to an excess of bench filler taking up part of the budget.

Football has changed, and our club was one of those that voted for those changes.  Players are less likely to play through the pain barrier now, because the sports science shows that this hurts us in the long term, so that means players are more likely to sit games out for knocks, and also get major issues sorted quicker.  Concussion rules mean that if a player gets a head knock, they are likely to need to be removed, and also sit games out.  More subs means the game is played at a higher intensity (my opinion, backed up by evidence from other sports) for longer, so when other clubs make subs and bring on fresh players, we need to do the same.  It means clubs need a larger squad to compete than we used to.    

I just did an unscientific survey by looking at some matchday squads for league 1 and 2 clubs, and it seems that other part time clubs down the ladder don't seem to have the same problems filling their bench. 

 

 

Edited January 1 by ExiledLichtie

[SimonLichtie]

8 minutes ago, relichtie said:

It would be better to have too many players than too few as Saturday showed. To be unable to fill the bench, albeit injuries have compounded the issue, is imo not acceptable for a professional football club. Only downside is trying to keep all those left out happy, but that is why managers are there. 

The other downside is the entire squad containing less quality players as its bulked out. As I say - it's a choice as opposed to being able to have both.

[SimonLichtie]

Just now, ExiledLichtie said:

Football has changed, and our club was one of those that voted for those changes.  Players are less likely to play through the pain barrier now, because the sports science shows that this hurts us in the long term, so that means players are more likely to sit games out for knocks, and also get major issues sorted quicker.  Concussion rules mean that if a player gets a head knock, they are likely to need to be removed, and also sit games out.  More subs means the game is played at a higher intensity (my opinion, backed up by evidence other sports) for longer, so when other clubs make subs and bring on fresh players, we need to do the same.  It means clubs need a larger squad to compete than we used to.    

I just did an unscientific survey by looking at some matchday squads for league 1 and 2 clubs, and it seems that other part time clubs down the ladder don't seem to have the same problems filling their bench. 

 

 

This is all very well and good - but I notice you didn't answer the question  

11 minutes ago, SimonLichtie said:

I guess another way to look at it - would you rather 2/3 players of the level of Bird/ Hylton came in this month (in the right positions) or 5/6 players of the level of Jacobs were signed? You can't have the quality players and the squad to cover every possible eventuality.

In terms of other squads filling benches - that would point to one of two things. Going for the latter option out of the above - and having a preference for depth over individual quality, or having a youth system. Both of these choices are totally fine, but each of them obviously have huge drawbacks. Considering how successful we've been over the past 8 years I think the choices we've gone with have proven to be correct. I wouldn't want us to change what's worked for us to follow in the footsteps of clubs who haven't been half as successful in that time.

One other thing I'd add that's really focused me with the squad size thing is people blaming the board. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Are people suggesting the board should've been interferring with who the manager did/ didn't sign?  The board set budgets, the management work within these budgets to sign players. The management should have nothing to do with the budget they're given, and the board should have nothing to do with how the management use it.

[1320Lichtie]

I feel like everyone is right in what they’re saying….

 

Thankfully it is a dilemma for Jim McIntyre to solve and not us and I’m looking forward to seeing what happens 

[SotesBornalichtie]

Jim McIntyre has been in the professional football game long enough to know how he wants his teams to play and the type of players he needs do that and the size of squad he would like. So I won't speculate about how many players should leave and how many should be brought in, I'm quite happy to leave it to him and hope the board give him as much backing as they did the previous manager.

He has only been at the club a few weeks and has made an impact and whatever happens during the rest of this season I think it will be next season before we see what he can really do for the club. Let's just leave him to do what he can and give him our support.

[ExiledLichtie]

I absolutely did answer the question.  If players are more likely to be injured, more likely to miss games, and also more likely to be taken off for precautionary knocks/head injuries, and other clubs are more likely to keep the pace and intensity up by using more subs and having more options, then yes, we need a larger squad.  You use Hylton/Bird as an example.  Bird of course was subbed off multiple times earlier this season while he got up to speed, and Hylton was taken off due to injury in the last game.  Who was it we ended up playing up front against Raith again?

You say its been successful for the past 8 years, and I agree, but I the 5 subs and 9 on the bench rule has been in place for a couple of years now, right?  I think they brought it in during the covid season, then reverted to 3 subs, then brought it back in last season.  Are concussion subs also still a thing, that was a relatively recent development, as was the concussion protocol generally.  So this is our second season of these new rules IIRC?  How have the last 2 years gone?  I don't want to do lazy causation and correlation stuff, but surely its got to make an impact?  

So yes.  Football is changing, and like it or not, we need a bigger squad.  I don't think its a choice any more.

I do completely agree that blaming the board is madness.  

 

Edited to add, another possible argument is that 5 subs allows managers to swap half their outfield players.  That makes it so much easier to bring on different types of players, change formations, respond to others etc.  Its one of those things where if everyone else is doing it, then we need to keep up.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1 by ExiledLichtie

[keptie]

It's all very well having a massive oversized squad but all that means is a massive dilution of quality

[SimonLichtie]

3 minutes ago, keptie said:

It's all very well having a massive oversized squad but all that means is a massive dilution of quality

It really is this simple.

I've obviously no issue with anyone who thinks we'd be better off having a squad of less quality but more bulked out, it's a perfectly fine opinion to have. The main point I'm trying to make is that I think people don't seem to realise the knock on effect having a bigger squad has on the quality of player in the regular starting 11. It's a trade off and all about finding the right balance, but you can't have it both ways.

Two or three quality first team regulars will win you more points over the course of a season than having a load of guys sitting about doing nothing the majority of the time, in my opinion.

[ecto]

20 minutes ago, keptie said:

It's all very well having a massive oversized squad but all that means is a massive dilution of quality

Has to be quality over quantity, surely 

[relichtie]

Are clubs allowed to include trialists for league games? Might be an option to have some promising juniors or young players on the bench. Not an ideal situation I agree but it is an alternative . 

[itzdrk]

Just now, relichtie said:

Are clubs allowed to include trialists for league games? Might be an option to have some promising juniors or young players on the bench. Not an ideal situation I agree but it is an alternative . 

Not in the top two leagues.