Gunnarsson wants new deal

[Royalwaster]

Get him to agree to a Mido-type deal!

[Hoop Blah]

Whether he can last 90 mins is also fairly irrelevant. Most players in a squad don't play 90 minutes and I'd rather have a committed hour from a player than a 90 minute stroll.

Eh? How do you figure that?

[Elmer Park]

In view of our perilous league position I think any decisions about the contracts of the more experienced and therefore higher wage earning players will have to wait until the end of the season. I suspect there will be many changes to the squad in the summer whichever League we find ourselves in.

[Sun Tzu]

Whether he can last 90 mins is also fairly irrelevant. Most players in a squad don't play 90 minutes and I'd rather have a committed hour from a player than a 90 minute stroll.

Eh? How do you figure that?

Squad of (say) 24 players. Max of 11 can play 90 minutes in any given game and in fact only 8 usually do, and one of them is the keeper so realistically only 7 players play 90 mins in any game.

If Bryn is only good for 60 (which probably isn't the case....) then that's manageable if what he contributes in that time, and to the squad generally, is worth while.

If you only had 11 players in a squad then having one of them who struggles to play a full game would be hopeless, but it's not that unusual to have the odd player who isn;t expected to play every minute of every game....

[Stolp]

He should be offered another deal as he is playing very well

[Hoop Blah]

Fair enough, I don't think I read squad instead of team, and to honest I don't think you should carry players who can't play 90 minutes as a professional (although if he can as he did against Barnsley then fine - although personally I think he still looked like he tired and was slipping off the pace abit and hence that tackle).

If he's only here to be part of the squad though, and not one who's going to be playing the majority of the time I'd say he's not worth keeping around.

[shaka's shorts]

player and reserve team coaching role?

[Sun Tzu]

Fair enough, I don't think I read squad instead of team, and to honest I don't think you should carry players who can't play 90 minutes as a professional (although if he can as he did against Barnsley then fine - although personally I think he still looked like he tired and was slipping off the pace abit and hence that tackle).

If he's only here to be part of the squad though, and not one who's going to be playing the majority of the time I'd say he's not worth keeping around.

If he plays 60 minutes of every game that is a big majority of the time.

And the season we got promoted Little and Convey both only played 60 minutes in most games and Oster and Hunt only played 30. They all played a big role in the season though.

[Hoop Blah]

That was just to keep the four of them involved though, it wasn't because the starting wingers couldn't complete 90 minutes. Big difference.

You shouldn't be playing a player who has to come off after an hour as it immediately limits your flexibility on substitutions, especially if that player is part of your strongest 11 as you infer by saying he'd potentially play 60 minutes every week.

[Comfortably Numb]

no no no. thanks, great servant, nice guy, but best days are past and there are too many midfielders here.

however, if we go down, keep him for 12 months

[brendywendy]

That was just to keep the four of them involved though, it wasn't because the starting wingers couldn't complete 90 minutes. Big difference.

You shouldn't be playing a player who has to come off after an hour as it immediately limits your flexibility on substitutions, especially if that player is part of your strongest 11 as you infer by saying he'd potentially play 60 minutes every week.

i thought it was more to do with having fresh wingers for the last half an hour to get at the fbs

[Hoop Blah]

I guess you'd have to ask Coppell, but they were obvious subs to make along with one of the forwards as you'd usually not want to swap a defender if you can help it.

Either way, I'd say they were tactical (and the easy option) moves as opposed to having to replace them because they were running out of steam.

[Terminal Boardom]

The article in the Evening Post goes on to say that Bryn is looking to return home to Iceland so I think we can kiss goodbye to him getting a coaching role with us.

When he does go we can look back at some sublime moments in the hoops. Some that spring to mind are:

Goals -v- Sheff Utd 2005/06
Goal -v- Leeds Utd 2005/06
Equaliser against Man Utd at OT in the cup 2006/07
Red card -v- West Ham at Upton Park 2007/08
THAT cross at Anfield

Does anyone have any others that spring readily to mind?

[brendywendy]

'greed

and oh for two wingers of their quality now

[Sun Tzu]

I don't think it makes much odds WHY the substitutions were made.

If your game plan says Player A does 60 mins then he comes off and Player B (fresh legs, different style etc etc) comes on then that seems a perfectly reasonable approach. There is a ridiculous amount of scope for substitutions and if you can't work around one planned swap then you aren;t much of a manager IMHO.

It's also not a fact that Gunnarsson CAN'T play 90 minutes, he managed 120 minutes at Anfield.....

It all, however, hinges on whether the Player A contributes a huge amount to the team / squad / club. If you think without his presence there would be a hole and you expect him to play 60% of the time then surely there isn;t a problem.

If clubs can accommodate players who barely even get a place on the bench most weeks then they can find room for a player who gives them an hour a week and the benefit of his experience / character every day.

[Archie's penalty]

Sign. Him. Up.

[Hoop Blah]

You don't think it's a bad move and a restriction to start a game knowing you almost HAVE to take one player off after 60 minutes thus leaving yourself only two substitutions to cover tactical changes or injuries?

I'm not saying Gunnarsson can't manage it, as you say he has, but he certainly gets a bit slower and I'm thinking about next season here and just commenting on your suggestion that having a player only be able to play 60 minutes would be fine.

I agree on having him around for his character (in principle) but those other players you talk about clubs having around and hardly playing are usually cheaper alternatives and ones capable of coming in and playing 90 minutes if needed.

The final decision comes down to if his benefit to the squad outweighs the financial cost of keeping him, and what alternatives we could spend that money on, but to say you're happy to go into every game of the season with a third of your substitutions already gone to accomodate a pretty average 34 year old midfielder baffles me!

[Forbury Lion]

The manager should tell Gunnarsson that his contract will be reviewed at the end of the season just like anyone else and that his performances and professionalism between now and then will be a key factor in his decision. That way we get Gunnarsson playing his best and giving his all until the end of the season.

What the club shouldn't do now is say no or give a new contract. Either one of these will allow the player to lose motivation or sit back and rest on his laurels.

[brendywendy]

hes said he hasnt asked for one
and will just leave it till the seasons over anyway

[URZZZZZZZZ]

See how he does until the end of the season, and if he does well give him a 6 month contract.

6 months? Are you being serious?

Deadly. Becoming more and more common in recent times, make him work for his contract as he appears to have been doing over the last month.