Does depth really matter?

[Skills]

Our fans in particular (whether it was Ole, or now under ETH) seem obsessed with depth and needing 2 players for each position. I think the people enviously look back at the way Fergie used to manage his squad and Guardiola does.

But quite frankly, I think very, very few coaches in modern football actually know how to manage a big squad. Do you just often end up creating a second team of unhappy players, who won't see any game time and then ruin squad morale?

Quite frankly, I don't want to hear any excuse about a lack of depth stopping us from competing in the future. I don't think it would make any difference.

 

[Pexbo]

Apparently did to my ex

 

[Giggsy13]

I do think girth matters just as much.

 

[BluesJr]

It just creates problems imo. You need a clear hierarchy in each position.

 

[DWelbz19]

Injury luck is more important, I guess. Keeping a consistent XI for like 90% of a season > squad depth

 

[Livewire1974]

Going longer can compensate.

 

[adexkola]

Our fans in particular (whether it was Ole, or now under ETH) seem obsessed with depth and needing 2 players for each position. I think the people enviously look back at the way Fergie used to manage his squad and Guardiola does.

But quite frankly, I think very, very few coaches in modern football actually know how to manage a big squad. Do you just often end up creating a second team of unhappy players, who won't see any game time and then ruin squad morale?

Quite frankly, I don't want to hear any excuse about a lack of depth stopping us from competing in the future. I don't think it would make any difference.

The depth of those examples you mention have been extremely overstated.

I don't think you need a replacement for every position. I think that apart from the first 11, you need a rotating pool of 5-6 players that can slot in across multiple positions, in case of injuries or loss of form. And those players need to be really good, such that they're pushing starters in training, and there is no/little drop in overall performance when they do come on in a game.

You could get lucky and avoid injuries like Leicester did. But why hedge on it?

 

[DutchSerb]

Depth is extremely important, we've been quite lucky with injuries this season IMO. Imagine Casemiro or Rashford getting hurt for a longer period, we'd have no answer. And what's a big squad? How is 2 players for each position too much? It is perfectly reasonable to want that given this club plays in 4 competitions. Depth also means having multiple options for different kind of games, kind of like how we use Fred. Yes you could consider McT, Maguire, Elanga "depth", but they add nothing to this team IMO. That's why people want proper back ups, so in the event we're struck by an injury wave we can still be succesful. And yes, lack of depth will definitely be a valid excuse if they can't compete in the future, since other team that DOES compete for every trophy year in year out have proven that it's needed in a long season.

 

[Pexbo]

Depth is extremely important,

Old wizard’s sleeve over here

 

[Tarrou]

of course it makes a difference

if Casemiro gets injured we're fecked as we have no backup

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DutchSerb]

Old wizard’s sleeve over here

 

[Zen86]

Fergie had squad players he could depend on to do a job, but he’d also embedded that winning mentality throughout the squad over the years.

We don’t need two WC players for each position, but you need cover. Guardiola is an outlier due to the stockpiling City do with players.

 

[TheRedHearted]

Our fans in particular (whether it was Ole, or now under ETH) seem obsessed with depth and needing 2 players for each position. I think the people enviously look back at the way Fergie used to manage his squad and Guardiola does.

But quite frankly, I think very, very few coaches in modern football actually know how to manage a big squad. Do you just often end up creating a second team of unhappy players, who won't see any game time and then ruin squad morale?

Quite frankly, I don't want to hear any excuse about a lack of depth stopping us from competing in the future. I don't think it would make any difference.

If you know how to use subs and in particular know how to rotate for cup games, hell yeah. If you have a backup player that you can actually trust managers tend to rotate, but when they don’t they don’t rotate or sub, players get fatigued and are even more likely to commit fouls if you ask me.

 

[Fortitude]

Oh Skills.

 

[croadyman]

Our fans in particular (whether it was Ole, or now under ETH) seem obsessed with depth and needing 2 players for each position. I think the people enviously look back at the way Fergie used to manage his squad and Guardiola does.

But quite frankly, I think very, very few coaches in modern football actually know how to manage a big squad. Do you just often end up creating a second team of unhappy players, who won't see any game time and then ruin squad morale?

Quite frankly, I don't want to hear any excuse about a lack of depth stopping us from competing in the future. I don't think it would make any difference.

Just feel we lack a little bit of depth in midfield with McTominay,Eriksen & Donny all out for a sustained period of time particularly the last two

 

[Gazza]

My captain and all of his teammates shall always play.

 

[cyril C]

If, like what Pep had, 2x50m fullbacks on either side, then you either hope someone will bid absence such as going to jail or long term injury, or you end up with too many unhappy players.

If, you have a mix of senior + very senior + junior players, you can still sit with a bag of unhappy players if you never rotate.

During Fergi era, remember that we lost to 2nd division club in FA, when Fergi made wholesale change. No-body back then shout sacking Fergi, but we all know why he had to rotate, too many games.

There are 38 EPL games, 10 European games, add 10 domestic cup games. Throw in re-play, Charity shield, and that world club games from previous glory season, there can be over 65 games a season. Add 10 international games for most of our players too.

IMO, we need around 15 experienced field players (excl keeper), all must have decent exposure and not just 10min every 2 games. Add 2-3 academy rising stars (Greenwood, Garnacho), a squad of 18 field players will keep you fully covered. So 2 players in every position is not possible, but with some players covering multiple role is possible.

 

[Trequarista10]

You need two options for every position, however its better to have a core of 17-18 or so with a few players who are capable of playing 2+ positions. Then 5 or 6 youngsters filling in for injuries.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Obviously girth is more important.

 

[edcunited1878]

Is falling 6 inches better than 6 feet?

 

[Pronewbie]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Red in STL]

Does depth really matter?

It does if you're in a submarine being depth charged

 

[RedIan]

It does if you dive in the shallow end,
silly answer to a silly question.

 

[Scandi Red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Oranges038]

It's not the size of the squad that matters it's what you do with it.

 

[Eric_the_Red99]

You could get lucky and avoid injuries like Leicester did. But why hedge on it?

 

[ForeverRed1]

you don’t win major trophies without depth, however 22 world class players would be very hard to manage. You do need more than a world class starting 11 though. Players are happy if they play plenty and play a major part in winning trophies. Winning and feeling part of something bigger than you is the key.

 

[matherto]

You need fantastic players for the first XI and great players as backups/rotation.

If your replacements for injuries/tiredness/etc aren't up to scratch then you set yourself up to lose/drop points.

 

[Solius]

Depth that can cover multiple positions is the ideal really. A CB that can cover LB, a CM that can play CAM, DM and even RB ala Fletcher.

Means you have that cover but they also get to play a lot because there will be injuries throughout the season. I think Ten Hag also really likes players who can operate in multiple positions.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Fergie was very different from Pep, the only position he liked to stockpile on depth was striker. Otherwise we relied on a group of 3-4 players who could play multiple positions to an acceptable standard + emergency shuffle like Carrick at Cb or Da Silva twins as wingers for cover.

 

[Hughes35]

I think two players who can play well in each position is important...... Having said that, I'm a big fan of a Daley Blind / John O'Shea type who can tick off being the cover for 2, 3 or 4 positions. That's how maintain squad depth without having a bloated, unhappy squad.

 

[fergiewherearethou]

It depends a lot on you own player's injury record. There are teams full of injury prone players and teams that rarely get an injury.
Ferguson won the treble in 99 with a squad of 17-18 players.

 

[Cascarino]

It’s definitely important. An example last season was when Arsenal had to play Cedric and Tavares at fullback and it derailed their season. You also have the more intangible benefits, such as players having competition and knowing that if their form drops there is someone who can come in and replace them. Depending on the personnel depth can also allow for more flexibility when it comes to the tactical approach in regards to the opposition. You could have a fullback who is more suited to an expansive front foot type of game, and his backup offering depth could be more competent when it comes to shoring up the back line. So you can switch in and out depending on the opposition.

Fergie was a bit of a master when it came to utilising the squad. I remember P Neville telling a story where Ferguson left him out for three games but told him he was needed for the 4th in advance, giving him a confidence boost for the game itself, keeping him happy and allowing Ferguson to rotate. He obviously had a lot of special qualities and his squad utilisation was right up there.

 

[BAMSOLA]

Yes 1999.

 

[Skills]

The point people aren't getting is, to keep a happy squad you actually need a manager capable of managing a big squad. In all the time I've watched football - that list consists of 2 managers. Pep Guardiola and Alex Ferguson.

The other great managers co have preferred working with smaller and more compact squads because it's much easier for them to manage and don't like rotating game to game to keep players sharp and happy. They'd rather manage injuries as they came along, rather than constantly having to keep starting quality players sharp somehow.

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Liverpool seemed like they played the same eleven nearly every week in recent years and they haven’t faired too badly.

 

[RedStarUnited]

The depth of those examples you mention have been extremely overstated.

I don't think you need a replacement for every position. I think that apart from the first 11, you need a rotating pool of 5-6 players that can slot in across multiple positions, in case of injuries or loss of form. And those players need to be really good, such that they're pushing starters in training, and there is no/little drop in overall performance when they do come on in a game.

You could get lucky and avoid injuries like Leicester did. But why hedge on it?

Also…From January to the end of the season they played 1 game a week.

 

[Abraxas]

Unless we find a magic pill that ensures nobody gets injured, loses form or struggles with tiredness over a long season competing on 4 fronts then you most certainly need depth.

You need a pool of players outside of whatever a best XI is. Not exactly 2 for every single position in the XI but you do need a pool of players that can rotate in and cover these situations that have real quality and offer competition. The rest you can flesh out with youth, ideally. That's the perfect situation as it it easier to man manage.

So you can't really look at the extremes of saying "depth doesn't matter" or "2 players of equal quality for every position" which I think was an old Jose mantra. It's somewhere in the middle.

 

[Canuckred64]

You can get away without depth if you are lucky. However, you need to be relatively injury free and have your starting eleven firing on all cylinders. If you suffer a few injuries to key personal or a player or two has a slump, you need depth. If your season is disjointed with replays in the domestic cups or the League or Cups suffer postponements due to weather or whatever, you need depth. If you have a few players suspended throughout the season you need depth.

You don't need two full squads but I do think you need 4 or 5 players that can come in without seeing a drop off in the ability of the team on the pitch.