Squad size

Parkinson would have had low 20's. Saving money on fringe players, coaches and accommodation and diverting that money into senior pro wages.

His view was that it also fostered a better squad togetherness. With 3-4 injured, the remaining players we either playing or on the bench. So no one was ever left resentful at being nowhere near the first team.

 

"Totally agree and that’s the point I’m trying to make, other than paying off contacts I’m struggling to see how the squad can be reduced."

Having a photo taken with Stuart McCall appears to be the most effective way of changing the squad...

 

As a comparison, here's what the figures were for roughly this time last season:

Current L1 squad uasage (courtesy of Experimental 361)

 

there were 36 players registered in PP's final year as manager.

 

yes, and due to the rules around loan players changing over the last 2 years you now need to have all your players signed up and registered before the end of the transfer window. no dipping into the loan market if you ran a low squad trying to edge your bets like you could a few years ago.. realistically with a fully fit squad, there's probably at least 10 of the players registered this year that wouldn't get anywhere near the first team but unfortunately we don't have that luxury right now.

 

Are you sure there were ever 36 players at any one time? Parky enjoyed the loan market, but they didn't all stay long.

 

i haven't cross-referenced each players start and finish date with each other no, but that was the beauty of the loan market 3 years ago - you could wheel and deal with what you needed and for how-long; short-term, long-term, emergency month or 90 days and the same for if you needed to get someone out to free up some funds.

unfortunately that's long gone now and it's either half or a full season. another logistical difficulty when trying to prepare for things that can't be guaranteed whilst trying to do it all within a limited budget.

 

I could see us having 45 players-ish this time around should we be in a bad way come January. We're already on 40 contracted players, so a couple of loans and personnel changes would see to that. Given how ludicrous things are, 50 is not out of the question.

 

With a large number of these being non league standard.
The rest hideously out of form.

 

Wow
Thoughts of having 50 "players" on the books is mind blowing when you consider that the 11 on the pitch are the supposedly the best we have
How bad are the other 39
This is horrendous proof as to how bad our recruitment policy/ transfer Comittee is they need to hang their heads in shame. The cost of maintaining a squad that size must be astronomical money that could be spent doubling up to pay for quality players
Another indictment of how badly this club is being run

 

You could get away with a small squad under the old loan system but with the transfer window not reopening until January you need a bigger squad.

 

The biggest problem is a lot aren't first team quality, or first team ready due to age. As the OP said similar to the Archie Christie days and look how that ended. It's unfair to compare Parkinson's squad with now because of the change in rules so it's unlikely they were all there at once clogging the wage bill up. It's much better to compare how many we had in 16/17(at once not all together) when we got to the playoff final, I'd be shocked if it was over 30.

 

32 judging by a wiki search and a bit of mental arithmetic.

39 seems large at first glance but it isn't really that vast when you look at it in the context of the development squad approach because you can't expect all of them to make the grade and in fact, you could argue that the current squad is too small.

We have 18 senior players or loanees who have to be considered as our key squad members (whether they are good enough or not is another question): O'Donnell, Chicksen. McGowan, J O'Brien, O'Connor, Scannell, Reeves, Doyle, Payne, Miller, Wilson, Mellor, Seedorf, Jones, Akpan, Knight-Percival, L O'Brien, Ball, Wright

In addition to them we have about 8 young players who are on the fringes: Riley, Robinson, Bruenker, Devine, Colville, Gibson, McCartan, Patrick and a further 13 other dev squad players who are making up the numbers to 39.

PFA figures show that only 1 in 6 academy graduates make it past their first pro deal so our 21 youngsters probably equates to 3 or 4 senior players which when added to the 18 senior players leaves us with a viable squad of at most 22 players. Those stats are admittedly based on 18 year olds who make it past 21 as a pro and our dev age range can probably be extended to include U23 rejects so the success rate might be slightly higher but we'd have to have a success rate of 1 in 3 (i.e. double the average) to get us to a "sensible" squad size of 25 which seems a bit ambitious.

 

True. However if you were bottom and went down with minimum changes to the squad etc then you would be castigated. Squad stability helps teams but you need a strong 11 to begin with to maintain that and also have luck with injuries. Therefore just be careful with stats. Squad rotation and size itself doesn't necessarily mean you will go down. Its the underlying causes of squad rotation i.e. injuries and the form of players which sends you down. I would argue its best to be doing it all now rather than at the Winter transfer window

 

Really surprised to see Devine's career stall. When we had no choice but to draft him at the start of the season under McCall he looked to have a real nice touch and calm head and didn't look out of place. He had some good players around him which may have helped his performances but surprised he's not kicked on.