Four reasons for and four against

[Smirking_Saint]

Good article by fourfourtwo here

 

Echos my thoughts

 

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/four-reasons-why-saints-can-break-top-four-and-four-reasons-why-they-wont

[Turkish]

I'm amazed there was no 'they said man would never climb Everest' in the reasons for.

[View From The Top]

I'm amazed there was no 'they said man would never climb Everest' in the reasons for.

 

"Just dreams and ambition needed" was my particular favourite.

[The9]

Good article by fourfourtwo here

 

Echos my thoughts

 

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/four-reasons-why-saints-can-break-top-four-and-four-reasons-why-they-wont

 

That's it in a nutshell for me. Glad that it's not just me that sees our squad is still pretty shallow, and whilst our rivals they have competing tournaments, that's not a factor over the period when we're playing against most of them - in fact if anything our League Cup run means we're the ones with the fixture congestion at the crucial time. City at least have a CL match midweek before playing us.

[James]

I actually disagree with a bit of that.

 

Our squad is far from 'paper thin'. I'd like to see how Man City would fair without Toure and Aguero for an extended run of games...their form would suffer as well.

 

Then the suggestion that big teams will 'nick our players in January' - I mean come on, surely even we aren't stupid enough to sell anyone of note in the window if we are still in the mix for the CL?

 

It struck me as a pretty patronizing article which is laced with the belief that a small time club like Southampton will never break the top 4 and the reasons given are the ones trotted out whenever a club outside of the so-called elite makes any kind of challenge.

 

I'm not saying I believe we will finish in the top 4 but its hardly ground breaking to say - 'they've got a small squad' or 'big clubs are just better'.

[del boy]

Its win/win for the reporter.... if Southampton do get into the top four at the end of the season they can say "See - I told you they could" and if they don't they can say "See - I told you they wouldn't"

[Graffito]

"..they have at least one good player in each position and all appear to complement each other well." Seems to contradict "paper thin squad."

[moonraker]

I actually disagree with a bit of that.

 

Our squad is far from 'paper thin'. I'd like to see how Man City would fair without Toure and Aguero for an extended run of games...their form would suffer as well.

 

Then the suggestion that big teams will 'nick our players in January' - I mean come on, surely even we aren't stupid enough to sell anyone of note in the window if we are still in the mix for the CL?

 

It struck me as a pretty patronizing article which is laced with the belief that a small time club like Southampton will never break the top 4 and the reasons given are the ones trotted out whenever a club outside of the so-called elite makes any kind of challenge.

 

I'm not saying I believe we will finish in the top 4 but its hardly ground breaking to say - 'they've got a small squad' or 'big clubs are just better'.

 

This, Chelski and City both have key first choice players for whom they do not have a comparable replacement and the long term loss of them would cause problems. I do not think we will loose any key players in January, as alluded to in the article it is a united squad with a common purpose and CL football mid season may not be as attractive as a LC Win and a top 4 spot (not a dream but a real prospect) with saints.

[The9]

"..they have at least one good player in each position and all appear to complement each other well." Seems to contradict "paper thin squad."

 

So you think 11 players, which is "at least one good player in each position" is a good squad? This does explain why people are so OTT about Saints' squad depth.

[The9]

This, Chelski and City both have key first choice players for whom they do not have a comparable replacement and the long term loss of them would cause problems. I do not think we will loose any key players in January, as alluded to in the article it is a united squad with a common purpose and CL football mid season may not be as attractive as a LC Win and a top 4 spot (not a dream but a real prospect) with saints.

 

Chelsea and Man City's second choice players in almost every position are established internationals who would start in practically every other team in Europe. Ours are the likes of Targett and Isgrove, who have limited Prem experience and are at best potentially good. Plus our backup centre forward is either our left midfielder (Mane, Long or Rodriguez) or a kid in Gallagher who certainly has potential but has been injured all season.

 

Why is this so difficult for people to grasp?

 

I don't think we'll sell many if any in January, but we also aren't expected to buy anyone either, and it'll be a time of rumour and unsettling of players just as it was last season. Hopefully we'll still be high enough in the table to be able to promise the chance of CL come Jan 31st.

[Rut]

Our squad is far from 'paper thin'. I'd like to see how Man City would fair without Toure and Aguero for an extended run of games...their form would suffer as well.

 

Agree totally. I'm sick of hearing about 'Saints are screwed if their best players get injured'. While this is potentially true it is the same for any team. It's part of the game. It gets magnified when you are doing well.

 

Aguero is an obvious one for Man City. Who would you like out of Chelsea's team?

 

Tough one. I actually think Terry would be a bigger loss to them than someone like Costa, Fabregas or Hazard.

 

Anyway - getting way ahead of things here. Gotta beat Villa first and foremost.

[Shalmaneser]

oh god... i know the guy who wrote this a little bit. i *really* wouldn't read too much into his opinion.

[James]

Targett is an England under-20 international who did well to shackle Alexis Sanchez in a win at the Emirates. We'd have to be pretty desperate to be starting Isgrove so not sure why he was mentioned as he currently isn't even in the squad.

 

Seems to me that big club back up players are deemed better just because they are well known. Liverpool and Spurs have plenty of squad players that are internationals and that I've heard of but it doesn't make them good.

 

I suspect Spurs would enjoy being in a position where they had JRod as a back up striker. Or would you rather have Soldado because he cost a lot and played for Spain a few times?

 

I just don't take the point that the big teams have much better strength and depth as I honestly don't think many do. Look at United for example - a few injuries and they are also playing under 19 centre backs. An injury crisis can hit even the biggest squad.

[S-Clarke]

Paper-thin is too strong a term to describe our squad. But it raises good points and I think most will agree with the reasoning.

[rudi7s]

Calling this guy a reporter haha, went to uni with him, only graduated last year. Doesn't know a great deal imo, very simple article. Any guy with a bit of knowledge on the premier league could have written this. Bit about ward-prowse - providing width?? And (when fit)?? As if he suffers badly with injuries often, he's just injured atm.

[Manuel]

Let the league table speak for itself.

[The9]

Targett is an England under-20 international who did well to shackle Alexis Sanchez in a win at the Emirates. We'd have to be pretty desperate to be starting Isgrove so not sure why he was mentioned as he currently isn't even in the squad.

 

Seems to me that big club back up players are deemed better just because they are well known. Liverpool and Spurs have plenty of squad players that are internationals and that I've heard of but it doesn't make them good.

 

I suspect Spurs would enjoy being in a position where they had JRod as a back up striker. Or would you rather have Soldado because he cost a lot and played for Spain a few times?

 

I just don't take the point that the big teams have much better strength and depth as I honestly don't think many do. Look at United for example - a few injuries and they are also playing under 19 centre backs. An injury crisis can hit even the biggest squad.

 

I'd rather have Soldado than an injured Gallagher. I'll tell you in 10 years whether I'd rather him to a fit one.

 

As for England U20s, here are the defenders from the last 5 U-20 or "Youth" competitions England qualified for:

Matthew Upson, John Curtis, Marlon Broomes, Jamie Carragher, Mark Jackson

Stephen Wright, Stephen Haslam, Neil Murphy, Adam Chambers, James Chambers, Richard Cooper

Steven Taylor, Matthew Kilgallon, Andrew Taylor, Phil Ifil, Martin Cranie, Jay McEveley

Kieran Trippier, Jordan Parkes, Martin Kelly, Ben Mee, Matthew Briggs, Gavin Hoyte, Nana Ofori-Tumasi

Blair Adams, Nathan Baker, Ben Gordon, James Hurst, Adam Smith, George Taft, Reece Wabara

 

Obviously a few of the last two lists still have a chance to establish themselves, but from 1999 to 2008 there are maybe 5 U-20 defenders who have established themselves in the Premier League over more than one season, and about 3 of those have been "top half" quality, with only Carragher and maybe Steven Taylor regularly playing at the level Saints will need from Targett. So the U-20 credentials really don't say anything about Targett's ability.

 

The fact we're going to be without Bertrand against Chelsea COULD be very significant. I doubt it's the case that covering left back is a problem for Chelsea, given that they're loaning us a starter. Man City have the same kind of depth, though Clichy seems to have got worse from not playing much.

 

Man United aren't even in consideration - their lack of depth at the back at the start of the season was obvious and due to the injuries they're so far off the pace. Arsenal have been pretty weak at the back with their injuries too, so I guess you have a point about Man U and Arsenal's lack of depth. Liverpool and Spurs have sufficient depth but are handicapped by the European competitions, Everton are probably lacking depth for Europe and that's why they've been struggling too.

 

If City and Chelsea had the level of injuries Man U have, it MIGHT affect their chances of challenging. In our case it definitely would. And we agree that an injury crisis can hit the biggest squad, but this is about the degree to which it is likely to.

 

We can sustain the current 3-4 midfield injuries without really impacting on the team's performance. Yes, we can go 3 injuries deep at left midfield before we get to Isgrove, but that's more symptomatic of our unbalanced squad depth than anything. But if Pelle gets injured as well as Gallagher? We have to change playing style to accommodate Mane/Long, and that's not something that comes without risk. Chelsea have Costa injured? Just chuck Remy, Drogba or Schurrle out there.

[The9]

Calling this guy a reporter haha, went to uni with him, only graduated last year. Doesn't know a great deal imo, very simple article. Any guy with a bit of knowledge on the premier league could have written this. Bit about ward-prowse - providing width?? And (when fit)?? As if he suffers badly with injuries often, he's just injured atm.

 

Anyone could have written it, it's a pretty straightforward article which is opinion light. But he actually did write it. Splitting hairs on JWP "width", he has played out wide - and "when fit" doesn't imply he gets a lot of injuries, just that he is injured, which he is.

 

Also, you can be a decent writer at the age of 12, when he graduated means nothing.

[Shalmaneser]

trust me on this; he is not a decent writer. it'll have been heavily edited.

[James]

I'd rather have Soldado than an injured Gallagher. I'll tell you in 10 years whether I'd rather him to a fit one.

 

As for England U20s, here are the defenders from the last 5 U-20 or "Youth" competitions England qualified for:

Matthew Upson, John Curtis, Marlon Broomes, Jamie Carragher, Mark Jackson

Stephen Wright, Stephen Haslam, Neil Murphy, Adam Chambers, James Chambers, Richard Cooper

Steven Taylor, Matthew Kilgallon, Andrew Taylor, Phil Ifil, Martin Cranie, Jay McEveley

Kieran Trippier, Jordan Parkes, Martin Kelly, Ben Mee, Matthew Briggs, Gavin Hoyte, Nana Ofori-Tumasi

Blair Adams, Nathan Baker, Ben Gordon, James Hurst, Adam Smith, George Taft, Reece Wabara

 

Obviously a few of the last two lists still have a chance to establish themselves, but from 1999 to 2008 there are maybe 5 U-20 defenders who have established themselves in the Premier League over more than one season, and about 3 of those have been "top half" quality, with only Carragher and maybe Steven Taylor regularly playing at the level Saints will need from Targett. So the U-20 credentials really don't say anything about Targett's ability.

 

The fact we're going to be without Bertrand against Chelsea COULD be very significant. I doubt it's the case that covering left back is a problem for Chelsea, given that they're loaning us a starter. Man City have the same kind of depth, though Clichy seems to have got worse from not playing much.

 

Man United aren't even in consideration - their lack of depth at the back at the start of the season was obvious and due to the injuries they're so far off the pace. Arsenal have been pretty weak at the back with their injuries too, so I guess you have a point about Man U and Arsenal's lack of depth. Liverpool and Spurs have sufficient depth but are handicapped by the European competitions, Everton are probably lacking depth for Europe and that's why they've been struggling too.

 

If City and Chelsea had the level of injuries Man U have, it MIGHT affect their chances of challenging. In our case it definitely would. And we agree that an injury crisis can hit the biggest squad, but this is about the degree to which it is likely to.

 

We can sustain the current 3-4 midfield injuries without really impacting on the team's performance. Yes, we can go 3 injuries deep at left midfield before we get to Isgrove, but that's more symptomatic of our unbalanced squad depth than anything. But if Pelle gets injured as well as Gallagher? We have to change playing style to accommodate Mane/Long, and that's not something that comes without risk. Chelsea have Costa injured? Just chuck Remy, Drogba or Schurrle out there.

 

I do agree with this.

 

But, we aren't competing against City/Chelsea for a top 4 spot (they are imo - nailed on). We are competing with Man U and Arsenal among a couple of others for the remaining spots.

 

My point is that United and Arsenal do have a lack of depth (and you agreed I had a point) but they would never be beaten with the 'paper thin squad' stick. We on the other hand are constantly accused of this by the media when in reality you could argue that we really aren't much worse off than some of our rivals for CL places.

[rudi7s]

Anyone could have written it, it's a pretty straightforward article which is opinion light. But he actually did write it. Splitting hairs on JWP "width", he has played out wide - and "when fit" doesn't imply he gets a lot of injuries, just that he is injured, which he is.

 

Also, you can be a decent writer at the age of 12, when he graduated means nothing.

 

He's not a decent writer, was my point. And someone called him a reporter which i contested. Also, the ward-prowse providing width bit shows naivety, just because someone has played out wide doesn't mean they're decent there or provide width, if anything JWP has stunted our 'width' when deployed out wide. I would have also put, when back from injury, just think 'fit' has certain connotations, like he's a wilshere type or sumant.

[Patrick Bateman]

Calling this guy a reporter haha, went to uni with him, only graduated last year. Doesn't know a great deal imo, very simple article. Any guy with a bit of knowledge on the premier league could have written this. Bit about ward-prowse - providing width?? And (when fit)?? As if he suffers badly with injuries often, he's just injured atm.

 

This is my problem with the "internet" and why I don't read anything. All these blogs and simple articles, a lot of which contain appalling grammar. They're all rubbish and just an opinion that I could get from reading this forum or going into a pub and asking some random blokes.

[KingdomCome]

This is filler, yes?

Paste-a-piece?

 

Not saying it's right or wrong, but lacking in any real insight. I feel like I've just washed down a slice of plain white bread with luke warm water.

[Beckenham Saint]

I do agree with this.

 

But, we aren't competing against City/Chelsea for a top 4 spot (they are imo - nailed on). We are competing with Man U and Arsenal among a couple of others for the remaining spots.

 

My point is that United and Arsenal do have a lack of depth (and you agreed I had a point) but they would never be beaten with the 'paper thin squad' stick. We on the other hand are constantly accused of this by the media when in reality you could argue that we really aren't much worse off than some of our rivals for CL places.

 

Wenger is regulary criticised by fans and questioned by reporters about Arsenals squad depth. There are loads of articles about how small their pool of options in defence and attack they are. The Arsenal fans in the office are always moaning about how Wenger failed to sign a "proper striker" (although they're keeping quiet while Sanchez is free scoring) and how they needed to sign a CB this year but didn't.

 

The media do write about their lack of squad depth (and there was a lot of talk about the imbalance in United's squad) - I think you may just not notice it as much being a Saints fan who, I assume, focuses mainly on reading about Saints.

[The9]

I do agree with this.

 

But, we aren't competing against City/Chelsea for a top 4 spot (they are imo - nailed on). We are competing with Man U and Arsenal among a couple of others for the remaining spots.

 

My point is that United and Arsenal do have a lack of depth (and you agreed I had a point) but they would never be beaten with the 'paper thin squad' stick. We on the other hand are constantly accused of this by the media when in reality you could argue that we really aren't much worse off than some of our rivals for CL places.

 

Fair enough. I think we're weaker in terms of depth everywhere other than midfield compared to the "big club" rivals for 3rd and 4th, and at best on a par with Arsenal and Man U in their weakest positions (both defence) bearing in mind that they have already had/are having injury crises. Liverpool and Spurs will depend on priorities and key player availability (ie Sturridge and Sterling for Liverpool), but certainly have more players who can slot in without obvious detriment to the team.

 

FWIW I think one of the reasons Swansea are doing pretty well is that they bolstered their squad for Europa League last season and got plenty of experience, and were then able to shift on the players they didn't really want, whilst keeping the better players in greater .

 

West Ham I just don't quite understand yet!

[The9]

This is my problem with the "internet" and why I don't read anything. All these blogs and simple articles, a lot of which contain appalling grammar. They're all rubbish and just an opinion that I could get from reading this forum or going into a pub and asking some random blokes.

 

Completely agree, but this one happens to coincide with some of the 4 reasons Saints might be successful and the 4 we might not, without getting too far into opinion. Both sides of the discussion gives everyone something to argue about.

[The9]

He's not a decent writer, was my point. And someone called him a reporter which i contested. Also, the ward-prowse providing width bit shows naivety, just because someone has played out wide doesn't mean they're decent there or provide width, if anything JWP has stunted our 'width' when deployed out wide. I would have also put, when back from injury, just think 'fit' has certain connotations, like he's a wilshere type or sumant.

 

Well he's very good at making it look like he can produce exactly what's asked of him to meet a remit then. Because aside from the questionable use of JWP as a wide player, its difficult to pick many holes in it.

[Charlie Wayman]

Nothing like sitting on the fence as a way of earning a living. If the future is always a repeat of the past then why are we bothering to keep the human race going at all.

 

If we lose the next four then OK but just suppose we win the next four... what will our pundit friends say then poor things?

[Smirking_Saint]

So you think 11 players, which is "at least one good player in each position" is a good squad? This does explain why people are so OTT about Saints' squad depth.

 

Chelsea and Man City's second choice players in almost every position are established internationals who would start in practically every other team in Europe. Ours are the likes of Targett and Isgrove, who have limited Prem experience and are at best potentially good. Plus our backup centre forward is either our left midfielder (Mane, Long or Rodriguez) or a kid in Gallagher who certainly has potential but has been injured all season.

 

Why is this so difficult for people to grasp?

 

I don't think we'll sell many if any in January, but we also aren't expected to buy anyone either, and it'll be a time of rumour and unsettling of players just as it was last season. Hopefully we'll still be high enough in the table to be able to promise the chance of CL come Jan 31st.

 

Saves me writting the above

 

Some people just look through red n white glasses

[Smirking_Saint]

Targett is an England under-20 international who did well to shackle Alexis Sanchez in a win at the Emirates. We'd have to be pretty desperate to be starting Isgrove so not sure why he was mentioned as he currently isn't even in the squad.

 

Seems to me that big club back up players are deemed better just because they are well known. Liverpool and Spurs have plenty of squad players that are internationals and that I've heard of but it doesn't make them good.

 

I suspect Spurs would enjoy being in a position where they had JRod as a back up striker. Or would you rather have Soldado because he cost a lot and played for Spain a few times?

 

I just don't take the point that the big teams have much better strength and depth as I honestly don't think many do. Look at United for example - a few injuries and they are also playing under 19 centre backs. An injury crisis can hit even the biggest squad.

 

You used Man City as an example, despite the fact that their reserve team is still better than most others in the league... Without Aguero they have Dzeko and Jovetic and behind Toure they have an array of midfielders from Fernando to Silva

 

And anyway, despite this what are you expecting ? That they have players AS good as Toure in reserve ? They dont, every team has poorer players in reserve, its how it works. It just so happens that behind Pelle and Tadic we have nobody Id be comfortable with taking their place for an extended period, probably ditto Clyne and Bertrand and even Forster

 

Its not hard, but I assume you have your overly optimistic glasses on, just like you did on the Mitchel thread

[Smirking_Saint]

trust me on this; he is not a decent writer. it'll have been heavily edited.

 

Whether it was or not I agree with the article. Shame people see a bit of negative and decide its crap.

 

The table doesnt lie, nor do our fixtures Im afraid, out of the teams we have played only two are top four contenders and we lost. We have a tough set of fixtures coming up, including cup games etc that will take it out of the squad potentially. And no, the squad isnt that strong, it is stronger than last year but still not quite there.

 

We'll definately be there or there abouts, but I wouldnt count your chickens just yet, it'll be a tough run in to xmas

[NickG]

I'd rather have Soldado than an injured Gallagher. I'll tell you in 10 years whether I'd rather him to a fit one.

 

As for England U20s, here are the defenders from the last 5 U-20 or "Youth" competitions England qualified for:

Matthew Upson, John Curtis, Marlon Broomes, Jamie Carragher, Mark Jackson

Stephen Wright, Stephen Haslam, Neil Murphy, Adam Chambers, James Chambers, Richard Cooper

Steven Taylor, Matthew Kilgallon, Andrew Taylor, Phil Ifil, Martin Cranie, Jay McEveley

Kieran Trippier, Jordan Parkes, Martin Kelly, Ben Mee, Matthew Briggs, Gavin Hoyte, Nana Ofori-Tumasi

Blair Adams, Nathan Baker, Ben Gordon, James Hurst, Adam Smith, George Taft, Reece Wabara

 

Obviously a few of the last two lists still have a chance to establish themselves, but from 1999 to 2008 there are maybe 5 U-20 defenders who have established themselves in the Premier League over more than one season, and about 3 of those have been "top half" quality, with only Carragher and maybe Steven Taylor regularly playing at the level Saints will need from Targett. So the U-20 credentials really don't say anything about Targett's ability.

 

The fact we're going to be without Bertrand against Chelsea COULD be very significant. I doubt it's the case that covering left back is a problem for Chelsea, given that they're loaning us a starter. Man City have the same kind of depth, though Clichy seems to have got worse from not playing much.

 

Man United aren't even in consideration - their lack of depth at the back at the start of the season was obvious and due to the injuries they're so far off the pace. Arsenal have been pretty weak at the back with their injuries too, so I guess you have a point about Man U and Arsenal's lack of depth. Liverpool and Spurs have sufficient depth but are handicapped by the European competitions, Everton are probably lacking depth for Europe and that's why they've been struggling too.

 

If City and Chelsea had the level of injuries Man U have, it MIGHT affect their chances of challenging. In our case it definitely would. And we agree that an injury crisis can hit the biggest squad, but this is about the degree to which it is likely to.

 

We can sustain the current 3-4 midfield injuries without really impacting on the team's performance. Yes, we can go 3 injuries deep at left midfield before we get to Isgrove, but that's more symptomatic of our unbalanced squad depth than anything. But if Pelle gets injured as well as Gallagher? We have to change playing style to accommodate Mane/Long, and that's not something that comes without risk. Chelsea have Costa injured? Just chuck Remy, Drogba or Schurrle out there.

But is Gallagher our 2nd choice forward? I don't think he is.

I think our cover is much better than last season;

 

If everyone else is fit then our back up probably is;

 

RB - Toby , with Gardos or Yoshida, international CBs who have looked good, cover CB. Toby plays RB internationally for Belgium. Improvement on chambers last season.

 

LB - our back up has been Fox or Clyne moving - this year better with Targett.

 

CBs - Gardos / Yoshida very good for 3rd/4th choice. Think Spurs / Liverpool would consider them for 1st team.

 

Midfield - Morgan, Wanyama, JWP, Tadic, Cork, Mane, Reid, Long, isgrove, McQueen, Rowe, even Gardos or Toby - pretty sure there will always be four or six from there.

 

Forwards - Pelle, Long only be moved out wide here, Jay Rod, Mane (clearly can play through middle) , Gallagher -unlikely will need to go far down the list.

 

It may well be that a favourite on here, Cork, is soon back down to be less likely to start in midfield than 7 others (Morgan, Wanyama, JWP, Davies, Tadic, Long, Mane).

 

Apparently our players are less likely to get injured, we have adaptable players, and a very flexible formation.

 

We may not have the depth of Chelsea / man city - we can't attract it without champions league, but also playing half the games we don't need it.

 

Id suggest Toby covering at RB, Gardos at CB would still give a back four which could compare with our top 7 competition.

 

With our midfield I'm sure Long would do OK - Liverpool 's forwards don't have a league goal yet, Spurs have Kane and Adebeyor with 3 between them - Pelle would be a big miss but we can't expect to have two at his level when most our rivals don't have one.

 

Easy to be impressed by names (Falcao, 1 goal ).

 

I think we have decent depth for a top 7 side not in Europe. Maybe rose tinted, but maybe other in awe of big name clubs and players - we are not light years away from them, but competing.

 

I think there are a fee valid points in that article, but not we are weak, nor we bottle hard games (rubbish). Anyway, Arsenal do that all the time.

[Smirking_Saint]

I dont think we 'bottle' hard games but no doubt if we had beaten them you'd be using it in your optimistic post, but fact of the matter is, out of the contenders we've lost.

 

Let me tell you were I am. I think its a stronger side to last year. A stronger depth to last year, but behind Pellè, Tadic and the FBs I worry.

 

No more no less, lets revisit in January when I hope we are perched pretty

[CB Fry]

Fair article overall, if a little obvious.

 

The phrase "paper-thin squad" is harsh in Saints-world, but not so harsh if we are talking about being a top four club. At the highest level we are thin. We need luck with injuries because we're not going to ever truly have a full top-4 squad. We've got a strong first 14/5 though.

 

I think the other clubs getting it together is the biggest threat, and Man U and Liverpool I think will get it together eventually. Spurs not so much.

 

We're in the mix like never before (in the CL era) but there's a long old way to go.

[Graffito]

So you think 11 players, which is "at least one good player in each position" is a good squad? This does explain why people are so OTT about Saints' squad depth.

 

You have a response to your comment but I won't dignify it with an answer.

[The9]

But is Gallagher our 2nd choice forward? I don't think he is.

I think our cover is much better than last season;

 

If everyone else is fit then our back up probably is;

 

RB - Toby , with Gardos or Yoshida, international CBs who have looked good, cover CB. Toby plays RB internationally for Belgium. Improvement on chambers last season.

 

LB - our back up has been Fox or Clyne moving - this year better with Targett.

 

CBs - Gardos / Yoshida very good for 3rd/4th choice. Think Spurs / Liverpool would consider them for 1st team.

 

Midfield - Morgan, Wanyama, JWP, Tadic, Cork, Mane, Reid, Long, isgrove, McQueen, Rowe, even Gardos or Toby - pretty sure there will always be four or six from there.

 

Forwards - Pelle, Long only be moved out wide here, Jay Rod, Mane (clearly can play through middle) , Gallagher -unlikely will need to go far down the list.

 

It may well be that a favourite on here, Cork, is soon back down to be less likely to start in midfield than 7 others (Morgan, Wanyama, JWP, Davies, Tadic, Long, Mane).

 

Apparently our players are less likely to get injured, we have adaptable players, and a very flexible formation.

 

We may not have the depth of Chelsea / man city - we can't attract it without champions league, but also playing half the games we don't need it.

 

Id suggest Toby covering at RB, Gardos at CB would still give a back four which could compare with our top 7 competition.

 

With our midfield I'm sure Long would do OK - Liverpool 's forwards don't have a league goal yet, Spurs have Kane and Adebeyor with 3 between them - Pelle would be a big miss but we can't expect to have two at his level when most our rivals don't have one.

 

Easy to be impressed by names (Falcao, 1 goal ).

 

I think we have decent depth for a top 7 side not in Europe. Maybe rose tinted, but maybe other in awe of big name clubs and players - we are not light years away from them, but competing.

 

I think there are a fee valid points in that article, but not we are weak, nor we bottle hard games (rubbish). Anyway, Arsenal do that all the time.

 

As I've had this discussion numerous times already, I'll just highlight the bits I don't agree with. For a start Targett covering left back compared to Clyne at LB with Chambers at right is a significant downgrade. Fox was gone by the end of August last season and started one game, when Clyne was left on the bench. Gardos is difficult to read, other than that Koeman thinks Fonte and Alderweireld are comfortably better. Yoshida can fill in but despite a couple of decent matches he's always one striker with pace and one header away from a nightmare.

 

I think you're dreaming if you think Spurs or Liverpool would consider Yoshida to start for them, Gardos I'd still have to see a lot more of, but by definition, again, at least our 3rd choice and last season Liverpool signed "our best defender" so why would they pick up the 3rd choice?

 

Your "unlikely we'll have to go far down the list" list of strikers currently has only Pelle, Mane and Long fit, and at least two of them would be expected to be on the pitch as part of our first XI. So we are one more injury away from having no-one left from the list you gave. Who goes on the bench then? How do we change games tactically?

 

Spurs and Liverpool are playing in 2 tournaments, that's why their depth is being stretched. That doesn't mean they don't have depth. Kane for instance has started maybe 2 Prem matches, because they choose not to pick him. He's still excellent "cover" if they wanted to pick him as he's scoring for fun in the Europa League.

[The9]

You have a response to your comment but I won't dignify it with an answer.

 

So is it that you don't understand the difference between a team and a squad, because that's the only conclusion I can logically come to?

 

Having "at least one good player in each position" could be as few as eleven players. That is the definition of paper thin. Mourinho uses 22/23, and all of them are expected to be starting quality. Making do isn't really an option when you're playing top sides 3 days apart, unless you like handicapping yourself - which is kinda the point of the whole discussion about squad depth.

 

It still all comes down to injuries, suspension and fatigue though. We might still get lucky at the right times.

[Smirking_Saint]

As I've had this discussion numerous times already, I'll just highlight the bits I don't agree with. For a start Targett covering left back compared to Clyne at LB with Chambers at right is a significant downgrade. Fox was gone by the end of August last season and started one game, when Clyne was left on the bench. Gardos is difficult to read, other than that Koeman thinks Fonte and Alderweireld are comfortably better. Yoshida can fill in but despite a couple of decent matches he's always one striker with pace and one header away from a nightmare.

 

I think you're dreaming if you think Spurs or Liverpool would consider Yoshida to start for them, Gardos I'd still have to see a lot more of, but by definition, again, at least our 3rd choice and last season Liverpool signed "our best defender" so why would they pick up the 3rd choice?

 

Your "unlikely we'll have to go far down the list" list of strikers currently has only Pelle, Mane and Long fit, and at least two of them would be expected to be on the pitch as part of our first XI. So we are one more injury away from having no-one left from the list you gave. Who goes on the bench then? How do we change games tactically?

 

Spurs and Liverpool are playing in 2 tournaments, that's why their depth is being stretched. That doesn't mean they don't have depth. Kane for instance has started maybe 2 Prem matches, because they choose not to pick him. He's still excellent "cover" if they wanted to pick him as he's scoring for fun in the Europa League.

 

I think people vastly underestimate the issues we would have if we had to replace Pelle or Tadic by the aforementioned cover. Yes, we have back up, but it would completely change the dynamics of the team.

 

Alderweireld playing RB effectively weakens CB as well, and again basically means we are still an injury away from danger there.

[Sour Mash]

Have we got a single player that would be comparable to Tadic and what he offers for us? I can't elieve we let Ramirez go, bad move there.

 

I also don't think we have anyone that can offer anything like what Pelle does.

 

And out 2nd choice keeper is worse than most others.

[Turkish]

But is Gallagher our 2nd choice forward? I don't think he is.

I think our cover is much better than last season;

 

If everyone else is fit then our back up probably is;

 

RB - Toby , with Gardos or Yoshida, international CBs who have looked good, cover CB. Toby plays RB internationally for Belgium. Improvement on chambers last season.

 

LB - our back up has been Fox or Clyne moving - this year better with Targett.

 

CBs - Gardos / Yoshida very good for 3rd/4th choice. Think Spurs / Liverpool would consider them for 1st team.

 

Midfield - Morgan, Wanyama, JWP, Tadic, Cork, Mane, Reid, Long, isgrove, McQueen, Rowe, even Gardos or Toby - pretty sure there will always be four or six from there.

 

Forwards - Pelle, Long only be moved out wide here, Jay Rod, Mane (clearly can play through middle) , Gallagher -unlikely will need to go far down the list.

 

It may well be that a favourite on here, Cork, is soon back down to be less likely to start in midfield than 7 others (Morgan, Wanyama, JWP, Davies, Tadic, Long, Mane).

 

Apparently our players are less likely to get injured, we have adaptable players, and a very flexible formation.

 

We may not have the depth of Chelsea / man city - we can't attract it without champions league, but also playing half the games we don't need it.

 

Id suggest Toby covering at RB, Gardos at CB would still give a back four which could compare with our top 7 competition.

 

With our midfield I'm sure Long would do OK - Liverpool 's forwards don't have a league goal yet, Spurs have Kane and Adebeyor with 3 between them - Pelle would be a big miss but we can't expect to have two at his level when most our rivals don't have one.

 

Easy to be impressed by names (Falcao, 1 goal ).

 

I think we have decent depth for a top 7 side not in Europe. Maybe rose tinted, but maybe other in awe of big name clubs and players - we are not light years away from them, but competing.

 

I think there are a fee valid points in that article, but not we are weak, nor we bottle hard games (rubbish). Anyway, Arsenal do that all the time.

 

You don't half talk some nonsense.

[AussieDog]

If we were looking at worst case scenarios where virtually our whole "first 11" were out injured, then yes, we would be very weak. That's not really likely is it! The point is, we have adequate cover in most areas if we were to lose 2,3 or even 4 players (unless it happened to be an entire "unit" like our defence). For me, realistically, gk is our main concern as even if Boruc was to be recalled I' m not sure his attitude would be right - but I would love to be proved wrong. Some players would certainly be missed more than others - for me that would Forster, Pelle and Tadic.

 

As someone mentioned earlier.... Realistically we aren't competing against City or Chelsea - it's Arsenal, Utd, West Ham, Swansea, Spurs, Liverpool and Everton ( I know that's not ALL the teams in order but I refuse to believe the likes of Stoke really represent a threat to us this season)

[Redslo]

Anyone could have written it, it's a pretty straightforward article which is opinion light. But he actually did write it. Splitting hairs on JWP "width", he has played out wide - and "when fit" doesn't imply he gets a lot of injuries, just that he is injured, which he is.

 

Also, you can be a decent writer at the age of 12, when he graduated means nothing.

 

I think the major accomplishment was getting it published by a professional paying magazine--not its content. But to the extent it seriously suggests that our championship league run will be foiled by selling important players to competitors in January, it is just nuts.