Enough of this set “First XI” nonsense

[Heardy]

I really think we need to advance our thinking of having a set “first XI.”

Im reading a lot of posts saying we’d be mad to spend 50m on Grealish to have as a sub every game. Similar concerns were expressed on whether should go for Sancho when have a very promising/young front three.

The gulf between our “first XI” and bench options is stark. Who else could have turned the rhythm of the last few games except Ighalo?

The fact that we could all predict 9-10/11 of our line up is a bad thing. We need to be going into games not knowing which players of martial Rashford Greenwood Pogba Bruno Sancho Grealish etc will start.

Same reason I’ve never really gone with city players In My fantasy team - too much rotation to know who is starting when the squad depth is so good.

There's enough games to give Sancho Grealish Vdb more than enough starts / minutes to keep them satisfied. Also provides far better cover for injury/form.

 

[Philo]

I agree about the gulf between our bench and our first XI, but I don't see how having a clear view of who is gonna be part of this first XI week in week out is a bad thing ? I mean Liverpool's first XI has been pretty straight forward for most of the season...

 

[Jev]

I mostly agree, although I feel having a set first XI is generally a good thing.

What we've seen since the restart is that our greatest weakness is not any particular position in our first XI, but the general weakness of our bench, making us overly reliant on our starting players, particularly the attacking once.

Ironically, I feel like this summer, we'd improve the team more by improving the bench than by improving the first XI. Obviously you automatically improve the bench by improving the first XI, but I'd take three strong rotation options at 30 million a piece over a 90 million star signing.

 

[Lynty]

Your talking to a very small minority who have a dated view of football.

99% of us know that we need far more quality in the squad.

 

[Heardy]

Ironically, I feel like this summer, we'd improve the team more by improving the bench than by improving the first XI. Obviously you automatically improve the bench by improving the first XI, but I'd take three strong rotation options at 30 million a piece over a 90 million star signing.

Hmm i disagree - 30m rotation options are where we will see the drop off when they come on to replace Pogba / Bruno etc., we need people to be pushing them to stay on form and then being able to maintain the same quality of football in the event of an injury, suspension or drop in form.

Bruno clearly needs a break and to have the luxury of being able to rest him and bring him on after an hour to inject some vision late in a game would be a huge advantage in a game like yesterday.

 

[Kag]

You’re right.

There appears to be more than a small minority who seem happy with the likes of Lingard being our first option from the bench to replace Bruno.

 

[georgipep]

I agree about the gulf between our bench and our first XI, but I don't see how having a clear view of who is gonna be part of this first XI week in week out is a bad thing ? I mean Liverpool's first XI has been pretty straight forward for most of the season...

Liverpool are incredibly dependent on their front three and that's not a good thing. They've just been lucky they haven't had any serious injuries.

Also, could you really guess their midfield prior to teams being announced? I couldn't. Henderson, Fabinho, Keita, Wijnaldum and Oxlade-Chamberlain (although he was used a lot as a wing player too) were all rotated a lot and there's always Milner.

 

[11101]

Van Der Sar
Brown Rio Vidic Evra
Scholes Carrick Giggs
Rooney Ronaldo Tevez

Schmeichel
Neville Stam Johnsen Irwin
Beckham Keane Scholes Giggs
Yorke Cole

With the exception of one or two positions, usually in midfield, we have always known our first XI.

There is nothing wrong with having a set first team. It helps them play together and form an understanding. Where we need to improve is the quality of the players that come in to replace them for rest, injury, variation or whatever. We should be buying players who could challenge to become part of that first team, or at least offer something different.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Van Der Sar
Brown Rio Vidic Evra
Scholes Carrick Giggs
Rooney Ronaldo Tevez

Schmeichel
Neville Stam Johnsen Irwin
Beckham Keane Scholes Giggs
Yorke Cole

With the exception of one or two positions, usually in midfield, we have always known our first XI.

There is nothing wrong with having a set first team. It helps them play together and form an understanding. Where we need to improve is the quality of the players that come in to replace them for rest, injury, variation or whatever. We should be buying players who could challenge to become part of that first team, or at least offer something different.

You say that, but in 99 Nicky Butt was just as likely to start a big game as Scholes was... Then you had Berg, P. Nev, Blomqvist, Ole etc who played loads of games.

Similarly in 08 you had Park, OShea, Hargreaves etc.

 

[dal]

You say that, but in 99 Nicky Butt was just as likely to start a big game as Scholes was... Then you had Berg, P. Nev, Blomqvist, Ole etc who played loads of games.

Similarly in 08 you had Park, OShea, Hargreaves etc.

Nani, Anderson and then Fletcher and Berbatov in 09

 

[Heardy]

You say that, but in 99 Nicky Butt was just as likely to start a big game as Scholes was... Then you had Berg, P. Nev, Blomqvist, Ole etc who played loads of games.

Similarly in 08 you had Park, OShea, Hargreaves etc.

Exactly - I think there needs to be very fluid mix of maybe 15 players that can all claim to be worthy of starting every game.

Our bench should include players pissed off at being benched despite scoring or assisting last game rather than a very obvious second tier of player.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

You say that, but in 99 Nicky Butt was just as likely to start a big game as Scholes was... Then you had Berg, P. Nev, Blomqvist, Ole etc who played loads of games.

Similarly in 08 you had Park, OShea, Hargreaves etc.

It doesn't mean he can't make changes in certain games to counter certain teams. End of the day, you want to know at least 70%-80% of the XI.

 

[11101]

You say that, but in 99 Nicky Butt was just as likely to start a big game as Scholes was... Then you had Berg, P. Nev, Blomqvist, Ole etc who played loads of games.

Similarly in 08 you had Park, OShea, Hargreaves etc.

If everybody was fit hardly any of those players would be starting games though, with the possible exception of Park, Hargreaves and occasionally Butt. They were all squad players. 8 or 9 of the names on the team sheet didn't require any thinking.

 

[Siorac]

Van Der Sar
Brown Rio Vidic Evra
Scholes Carrick Giggs
Rooney Ronaldo Tevez

Schmeichel
Neville Stam Johnsen Irwin
Beckham Keane Scholes Giggs
Yorke Cole

With the exception of one or two positions, usually in midfield, we have always known our first XI.

There is nothing wrong with having a set first team. It helps them play together and form an understanding. Where we need to improve is the quality of the players that come in to replace them for rest, injury, variation or whatever. We should be buying players who could challenge to become part of that first team, or at least offer something different.

While there's indeed nothing wrong with a set first XI, the team you put here started twice in 07/08. Three times if you count the home game against Villa where Kuszczak started in goal but the outfield players were the same. Scholes, for example, only started 22 Premier League games out of 38. Carrick started 24, Rooney started 25 - basically, one of the standout things about that season was how we didn't have anywhere close to a settled first XI. We had a settled back five plus Ronaldo, everyone else was rotated heavily.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

If everybody was fit hardly any of those players would be starting games though, with the possible exception of Park, Hargreaves and occasionally Butt. They were all squad players. 8 or 9 of the names on the team sheet didn't require any thinking.

More then occasionally... For example, in 99 Butt started both FA Cup semi final games and the second leg in Turin over Scholes.

But yeah, if as you say you have 8 or 9 definites, that's still not a set first XI.

 

[Njord]

I think a good standard to reach for is to have a squad with 16 interchangable starters, and 6-7 squad players.

1 Goal keeper: De Gea
3 Full backs: AWB, Shaw, Williams
3 Centre backs: Maguire, Lindelöf, Tuanzebe
3 Midfielders: Pogba, Matic, McTominay
3 Creators: Fernandes, Sancho, Grealish
3 Goal scorers: Martial, Rashford, Greenwood

From the setup above, I'd say after the addition of Sancho and Grealish, the biggest drop in quality would be at CB and FB.

To complete the squad I'd add six players that wouldn't expect to start very often, with a mix of reliable experience and youngsters with potential: Ighalo, James, Fred, Laird, Bailly, Romero

A new FB and CB would move Williams and Tuanzebe to this category.

There's no need to keep hold of unreliable, or not good enough players like Lingard, Pereira, Dalot, Jones, Rojo and Bailly.

 

[el3mel]

I agree about your general point, but Grealish doesn't deserve 50m and paying this much for a sub player might affect the money needed for the main players like Sancho.

 

[TMDaines]

Van Der Sar
Brown Rio Vidic Evra
Scholes Carrick Giggs
Rooney Ronaldo Tevez

Schmeichel
Neville Stam Johnsen Irwin
Beckham Keane Scholes Giggs
Yorke Cole

With the exception of one or two positions, usually in midfield, we have always known our first XI.

There is nothing wrong with having a set first team. It helps them play together and form an understanding. Where we need to improve is the quality of the players that come in to replace them for rest, injury, variation or whatever. We should be buying players who could challenge to become part of that first team, or at least offer something different.

You should probably have let Ferguson know at the time considering his penchant for rotation.

Both of these XIs only played together exactly twice.

 

[11101]

While there's indeed nothing wrong with a set first XI, the team you put here started twice in 07/08. Three times if you count the home game against Villa where Kuszczak started in goal but the outfield players were the same. Scholes, for example, only started 22 Premier League games out of 38. Carrick started 24, Rooney started 25 - basically, one of the standout things about that season was how we didn't have anywhere close to a settled first XI. We had a settled back five plus Ronaldo, everyone else was rotated heavily.

As i said midfield is the area we rotated in. Defenders and forwards were largely kept consistent, injuries allowing.

The 99 team for example, with the arguable exception of Scholes the 1st XI was set in stone. Didn't mean that team was always available to play though.

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

Your talking to a very small minority who have a dated view of football.

99% of us know that we need far more quality in the squad.

This.

 

[Bastian]

Your talking to a very small minority who have a dated view of football.

99% of us know that we need far more quality in the squad.

I think that's it right there.

Dream scenario is having Laird/Williams as backup on the right, Shaw fighting with an authentic attacking left-footed full back, Lindelof being understudy to Maguire and a top class dynamic centre back. In midfield there is the issue of Matic not being able to handle 60 games in a season and no player being quite the type to do his role. And there is the enormous drop in quality once you take out either Bruno or Pogba.

The neglected right wing will be remedied and it will be great to have 4 fantastic options for 3 positions but I can't see us buying more than one outstanding player and then a couple of squad options given the outlay on our last 3 signings, and - most importantly - our inability to offload players.

 

[DCP]

I don’t know whether the gulf in quality that big, you’d think McT or Fred could come in an and replace Matic but they just don’t fit in to that system and do the role.
Grealish would be an incredible signing, if he didn’t fit straight in then would be an awesome squad player giving us something different

 

[sherrinford]

Priorities. Folk refuting claims that we, for example, should not spend that money on Grealish are largely ignoring that. Anyone who rates Grealish would love for us to have him on the bench, and have players of similar quality throughout the entire squad.

Be realistic though. We currently have an established first choice eleven. It could be better. Why spend money on a backup/ rotation option for one or more of the stronger positions rather than upgrading one of the weaker ones?


There really isn't enough minutes to go around either. Not many players are going to be overly satisfied or able to contribute to their fullest potential coming into the team sporadically for the diddy cups or what's deemed to be league games against weaker opposition in order to allow more important players to recover for bigger games.

 

[Siorac]

As i said midfield is the area we rotated in. Defenders and forwards were largely kept consistent, injuries allowing.

The 99 team for example, with the arguable exception of Scholes the 1st XI was set in stone. Didn't mean that team was always available to play though.

No, forwards definitely weren't kept consistent in 07/08. Ronaldo started most games (and Rooney started all big games when he was available) but the rest were rotated a lot. For example, Park only started 14 games - but those included all four games in the CL quarter-finals and semi-finals. The first CL knockout game that Tévez started was the second leg against Roma. He didn't start against Liverpool or Arsenal at Old Trafford. Nani started some real big games, like Lyon and Barcelona at Old Trafford, or Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.

 

[GuyfromAustria]

The 99 team for example, with the arguable exception of Scholes the 1st XI was set in stone. Didn't mean that team was always available to play though.

This XI started two games, Coventry and Inter.

 

[bosnian_red]

Agree. I think the right level of competition without having unhappy players is having 1 extra per grouping that is pretty much at the same level. Signing Sancho would give us an attack of Rashford, Martial, Sancho and Greenwood, where 3 of the 4 will start dependent on form, fitness, opponent, and the other will get subbed on for whoever isn't performing or whoever is tired. Signing Grealish would get the same situation for Pogba and Bruno.

We saw this past month that while it was a crazy period unlikely to be repeated, the depth is still needed to be a top club and compete on multiple fronts. You need to be able to rotate, rest players who lose form, have that change off the bench that is basically the same level. Too many of them and it becomes an issue. Having 1 extra per group is a good balance IMO, as they'll likely all play the same amount over a season, while the deeper depth like James and Ighalo come in for additional rest, subs in easier games, etc. Its how a squad at a top club should look like.

 

[RedSky]

Just a reminder, here's the full minutes this season in the squad. I didn't bother listing anyone with less than 250mins.

Player Name	Mins This Season (All Comps)​
Harry Maguire​	4662​
Victor Lindelöf​	3969​
Aaron Wan-Bissaka​	3840​
David de Gea​	3780​
Anthony Martial​	3350​
Fred​	3321​
Marcus Rashford​	3273​
Daniel James​	2918​
Luke Shaw​	2526​
Nemanja Matic​	2510​
Mason Greenwood​	2412​
Scott McTominay​	2363​
Andreas Pereira​	2241​
Brandon Williams​	2160​
Jesse Lingard​	1818​
Juan Mata​	1816​
Bruno Fernandes​	1622​
Sergio Romero​	1380​
Paul Pogba​	1371​
Ashley Young​	1313​
Marcos Rojo​	648​
Axel Tuanzebe​	611​
Diogo Dalot​	577​
Phil Jones​	562​
Eric Bailly​	558​
Odion Ighalo​	509​
Tahith Chong​	447​
James Garner​	316​
Angel Gomes​	291​

Clearly Pogba and Bruno will get far more mins next season (injures pending). But if we remove Lingard, Pereira, Jones and Rojo that's already almost 7,000 mins with the addition of Young/Gomes. James/Mata should get significantly less minutes as well.

It's clear we can add 2 more attacking players into the team and they can be top quality players who would still get 2,500+ mins in the season. There's more than enough minutes to pass around, we've just handed far too many minutes to average players this year. Time for a serious upgrade please Ed.

 

[okLaptop1]

Van Der Sar
Brown Rio Vidic Evra
Scholes Carrick Giggs
Rooney Ronaldo Tevez

Schmeichel
Neville Stam Johnsen Irwin
Beckham Keane Scholes Giggs
Yorke Cole

With the exception of one or two positions, usually in midfield, we have always known our first XI.

There is nothing wrong with having a set first team. It helps them play together and form an understanding. Where we need to improve is the quality of the players that come in to replace them for rest, injury, variation or whatever. We should be buying players who could challenge to become part of that first team, or at least offer something different.

That's the important part here. When people say we need more depth after the starting XI, it doesn't mean we buy players specifically to be good off the bench. We should be buying players good enough to start for a title-contending team, then whoever wins the spot starts, while the others sit.

 

[Black Rick]

If we bought Sancho then one of Rashford, Martial and Greenwood's development and/or contentment would suffer.

Look at Manchester City where a strong squad and consequent rotation is at core of their success:
They Sane due to discontentment regarding lack of game time
They lost Danilo due to discontentment regarding lack of game time
Cancelo is said to be unhappy due to lack of game time
Jesus has underdeveloped due to constantly benchwarming for Aguero
Stones has underdeveloped due to lack of game time (admittedly along with generally being Stones)

Strong squads and rotation are important but equally the manager will know his strongest 11, and he will play those 11 together as often as they physically can and especially in the biggest games. This is directly at a cost to the development and contentment of those that aren't in the 11.

 

[Valuedrug]

I think the really interesting question here isn't so much whether someone like Grealish would be a good signing. He absolutely would be. We could rotate, probably play slightly different formations etc. with someone like that able to play in multiple positions without losing too much effectiveness. Not to mention he seems to be another character, who would add more mental resolve to a side still desperately short on leaders.

For me it's more the dilemma posed by someone like Sancho. Say the club is still not willing to go for broke in order to really build this team for a title challenge in the short term. If the powers that be limit our spending somewhat, forcing Ole to choose between Sancho vs. proper investment in defense and midfield and an option or two in depth. What does Ole do then? Does he go big for Sancho and say one other inexpensive defensive option, and rides his luck with the academy again?

For me I can't see Sancho, marvelous as he is, being the right choice in that situation. If we we're further along the development curve, sure, but right now this squad seems paper thin, and it will derail any attempt to gain a proper foothold in the league given the likely summer plans of other top teams.

 

[Bwuk]

With the amount of games we have to play - you need 15 players capable of a starting every week, and a few more squaddies to pad it out.

De Gea; AWB, New CB, Maguire, Shaw; Matic, Pogba, Bruno; Sancho, Martial, Rashford.

Greenwood
Grealish
McTominay
Lindelof

Thats a really good core.

 

[Le Red]

Your talking to a very small minority who have a dated view of football.

99% of us know that we need far more quality in the squad.

This is small minority must be really vocal then because you'll find them by the dozens in the Sancho and Grealish threads.

 

[Rozay]

There’s no formula. If you have players who are genuinely that good, then you will have a fixed XI. Rotation is for when there’s much of a muchness. Barcelona’s best teams picked themselves, and you simply couldn’t find anyone to rotate with Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets even if you wanted to.