Transfer Policy and Squad Size - what do you read into it?

[Southbank Old Boy]

Most people would agree that defenders need a run of games in a stable back 4 to build their understanding. Maybe Bikey's wobbly moments have come due to the fact that he has not been given a good run of games. When he eventually got a small run of games in the second half of this season I thought he made a real difference. I'd like to see a back 4 with Bikey and Ingi as the mainstays and Rosenior + new left back alongside them. Much as I am a big fan of Bikey, I agree that he needs to focus on CB and not be played out of position at CM. We need to buy a new, strong holding midfielder with decent distribution for that.

I'd say there is some weight to that arguement.

[Laura Norder]

i am a big fan of bikey and i like him he is big and tuogh and bikey must be in are team nexy seassen please he is god

[Huntley & Palmer]

Bikey's main problems are his positional sense in the line of defenders and his concentration levels, he switches off too many times. This was exploited at Premier League level but might be less evident at Championship level, there is no way on Earth he is a central midfielder though. No matter what people think

[Denver Royal]

May I just ask a general question...Are we not now trying to form a team with Premiership potential? Three years ago in the Championship it seemed that we were. It seemed that we had half an eye on the Premiership. Whereas now it seems a case of 'not a Premiership player, but might be able to do a job at Championship level, so he may be okay'. If by chance we get promoted this season, which I assume is the goal, what are we then going to do...have a massive clear out and change most of the team? How many in the current squad could play in the Premiership in a years time, and a year older, and do well? It seems we had more ambition 3 years ago when we had never been in the Premiership, than we have now having just came out of it.

[The Surgeon of Crowthorne]

I have to agree with Southbank OB. Bikey has just not convinced me at centre mid - he certainly had a shocker there against Spurs. I'm much happier with him at centre back. I think his absence at Derby says more about the Derby forwards than it does about his long term future in the side.

[brendywendy]

May I just ask a general question...Are we not now trying to form a team with Premiership potential? Three years ago in the Championship it seemed that we were. It seemed that we had half an eye on the Premiership. Whereas now it seems a case of 'not a Premiership player, but might be able to do a job at Championship level, so he should be fine'. If by chance we get promoted this season, which I assume is the goal, what are we going to do...have a massive clear out and change most of the team? How many in the current squad could play in the Premiership in a years time and do well?

little, brynn, ivar, murts etc would all have to go

and for cisse, kebe, long,etc it would depend on how they progressed this season



and bikey for CD for me-has the potential to be awesome there, but average in CM

[Royal Rother]

Oh well, he has obviously shown more at CD so far, because that's where he has played mostly. He certainly looked all at sea when played in CM the first time, but late on in the season he had an excellent game there and showed what a bit of muscle could give, breaking up attacks with ease and playing the ball forward.

I don't really mind where he plays but as we have a surplus of CDs and bugger all in midfield I'd be pretty confident he could build on the promise already shown if given the opportunity.

On a slightly different tack - signing new players will mean the opportunities for our promising players are reduced. What will people be most happy with? More established pros and no chance for Pearce, Henry, Karacan, Robson-Kanu etc. or let's see how good they might be in the 1st half of the season, (possibly sacrificing a few places / points) and, if not good enough then use the January window to strengthen?

Personally speaking I would be perfectly happy if we gave the youngsters a chance to prove themselves rather than spending on new players - I'm sure many wouldn't though, because they just want those millions to be spent as that's the only thing that will demonstrate real ambition to them.

[brendywendy]

id certainly be dissapointed if one of the three best ones didnt break into the 1st team next season
and if loads of new players stops that, then im against it

[Denver Royal]

On a slightly different tack - signing new players will mean the opportunities for our promising players are reduced. What will people be most happy with? More established pros and no chance for Pearce, Henry, Karacan, Robson-Kanu etc. or let's see how good they might be in the 1st half of the season, (possibly sacrificing a few places / points) and, if not good enough then use the January window to strengthen?

Personally speaking I would be perfectly happy if we gave the youngsters a chance to prove themselves rather than spending on new players - I'm sure many wouldn't though, because they just want those millions to be spent as that's the only thing that will demonstrate real ambition to them.

I think right from the outset we should field the best team we can possibly field, one that gives us the best chance of winning each week...and thus the best chance of promotion. Then, if its clear that we're out of it come Spring, then maybe blood some youngsters then. Hopefully that answers your question(?)

[Royal Rother]

Not really, I was (kind of) asking whether if signing new players (established pros) meant the chances of promotion (on the face of it) increased, but the chances of any of our youngsters getting an opportunity were decreased, would we be happy with that...

[Denver Royal]

Not really, I was (kind of) asking whether if signing new players (established pros) meant the chances of promotion (on the face of it) increased, but the chances of any of our youngsters getting an opportunity were decreased, would we be happy with that...

Okay, let me try this again...I'm happy with the club doing whatever increases our chances of winning/promotion. And if the club feels that fielding seasoned veterans over youngsters gives us a better chance of doing that, then I'm all for it. I'm not much for 'Well we are losing games but at least some youngsters are getting some playing time'...especially at the start of a season. As I said, if you want to take a look at youngsters, then I'd rather we do it later in the season if/when we have nothing to play for. Generally speaking, isn't that how many clubs do it?

[brendywendy]

Not really, I was (kind of) asking whether if signing new players (established pros) meant the chances of promotion (on the face of it) increased, but the chances of any of our youngsters getting an opportunity were decreased, would we be happy with that...

Okay, let me try this again...I'm happy with the club doing whatever increases our chances of winning/promotion. And if the club feels that fielding seasoned veterans over youngsters gives us a better chance of doing that, then I'm all for it. I'm not much for 'Well we are losing games but at least some youngsters are getting some playing time'...especially at the start of a season. As I said, if you want to take a look at youngsters, then I'd rather we do it later in the season if/when we have nothing to play for. Generally speaking, isn't that how many clubs do it?

its certainly not the reading way

[Sarah Star]

I was thinking that 22 players in a team meant 1 for every position and 1 as back-up. Wouldn't it work if all the youngsters were used as back-up (subs or whatever) with more experienced players as first-team regulars?

I don't know these things, so please tell me if I'm wrong. How do you go about selecting a team anyway?

[Southbank Old Boy]

On a slightly different tack - signing new players will mean the opportunities for our promising players are reduced. What will people be most happy with? More established pros and no chance for Pearce, Henry, Karacan, Robson-Kanu etc. or let's see how good they might be in the 1st half of the season, (possibly sacrificing a few places / points) and, if not good enough then use the January window to strengthen?

Personally speaking I would be perfectly happy if we gave the youngsters a chance to prove themselves rather than spending on new players - I'm sure many wouldn't though, because they just want those millions to be spent as that's the only thing that will demonstrate real ambition to them.

I think again it comes down to a balancing act and getting the right mix of youth, experience and quality.

Take Henry for example. Little will hopefully come back into the reckoning next season and should probably start as our right winger. However, it would seem obvious that he's not going to be fit enough to play week in week out, or at least that is what we should be expecting given his record (something we got horribly wrong last season). Little plus AN Other right winger (who might only play there on a part time basis and be used on the other wing, upfront or in the middle perhaps) as his experienced cover. Over the course of the season Henry, effectively being our third choice right midfielder should, if he shows he's good enough get 10-15 games as a sub or as a starter if he fulfils the potential. That is more than enough chance to suss out his real potential at Reading. He has to be used more in the cup games though.

Likewise you can say the same for the likes of Robson-Kanu, Karacan and Pearce. Having any of them as the only back up to our supposed 1st choice players would just not be enough strength in depth as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously finances and player availabilty effect who we can get in as 1st or 2nd choice in their positions, but I don't think any of them have shown enough to be one injury away from being our 1st choice next season.

I've obvioulsy discounted Kebe from the right wing scenario because he doesnt count as a professional footballer!

In all fairness, to answer your question RR, I'd rather see the youth given a fair chance to prove their worth and we finish, for arguements sake, 8th and outside of the play offs, than we never see them get a chance and finish 3rd.

[Royal Rother]

Thanks. I think that's how I feel about it too.

But of course Top 2 would be better, however that is achieved (i.e. youngsters or no youngsters).

[Denver Royal]

I'd rather see the youth given a fair chance to prove their worth and we finish, for arguements sake, 8th and outside of the play offs, than we never see them get a chance and finish 3rd.

Even if by finishing 3rd, it meant we then got promoted via the playoffs?

I guess we have come a long way, or at least changed some of our perspectives.

I remember when we would have given our right arms to get in the playoffs for the Premiership.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a whole slew of our Academy players become stars in the 1st team. It would be a great feel-good story.

But there often seems to be an underlying feeling in here that the reason we don't produce good youngsters is because they are never given a chance.

Well, if we have overlooked them, its not like hundreds of them have then gone on to be stars elsewhere.

I would have to conclude, therefore, that most of them simply haven't been good enough.

I know we are forever searching for more sinister reasons than that, but thats the bottom line as I see it.

[Southbank Old Boy]

I'd rather see the youth given a fair chance to prove their worth and we finish, for arguements sake, 8th and outside of the play offs, than we never see them get a chance and finish 3rd.

Even if by finishing 3rd, it meant we then got promoted via the playoffs?

There often seems to be an underlying feeling in here that the reason we don't produce good youngsters is because they are never given a chance.

Well, if we overlooked them, its not like hundreds of them then went on to be stars elsewhere.

I would have to conclude, therefore, that most of them simply haven't been good enough.

I know we are forever searching for more sinister reasons than that, but thats the bottom line as I see it.

Even if finishing third guaranteed us promotion via the play-offs? Probably yes.

I think a lot of it comes down to our players not getting a chance yes. It's true that none of those we've let go have gone on to prove us wrong, but so much of it is down to timing and getting and taking a chance at the right time.

A lot of youngsters who dont get a chance just fall by the wayside because they're so disheartened and disillusioned with the game. With our youngsters there isnt really a role model to give them the belief that there is life after Reading. Perhaps if one of them went on to make it after being rejected here then others would've too.

I do think we lack the ability to turn talent into players though. We just haven't produced that many professionals in comparison to the talent we show at age group levels.

It's all ifs, buts and maybes though.

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

It's not a case of either, or.

It's both.

You buy players better than what you have and then hope a few of the youngster become even better.They will get chances next season as it seems Coppell doesn't want as many senior players as he had last season. If they are good enough then they will look good.

You can't rely on them though. Example is the right wing situation, we sign someone as good Little (easier said than done) and hope Henry steps up. If Henry steps up we then have two quality wingers to replace Little. If you don't sign that player, you can easily end up with an injured Little and Henry not being good enough and it's last season all over again...

[Royal Rother]

Using the squad to replace injured / suspended players will be even more important than in the PL. If Little is injured and Henry isn't good enough then Rosenior would step up the flank and Murty would fill in at the back, Doyle would move wide leaving a space for Long, or Hunt would swap wings with Convey stepping up etc. We obviously don't know who's going to be with us still come the start of the season but across the squad we would aim to have several options even if they are not all ideal because I really don't think we can afford to have the level of cover you seem to want.

[Franchise FC]

I was thinking that 22 players in a team meant 1 for every position and 1 as back-up. Wouldn't it work if all the youngsters were used as back-up (subs or whatever) with more experienced players as first-team regulars?

I don't know these things, so please tell me if I'm wrong. How do you go about selecting a team anyway?

Go on then, I'll bite !!

What you do is you give each senior member of the squad a number from 1 to 20, then give each of the youngsters a number from 1 to 20.

Then you throw 11 darts at a dart board (remembering that you get nothing for two in a bed - sorry Leroy). Those selected will be the ones with the numbers into which the darts land. If it lands on a double or treble, then the youngster gets the nod. If no goalkeeper is darted, then play with rush goalies.

Simple.