Gunnarsson wants new deal

[Sun Tzu]

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?

Not really. We used to only have one sub, then only two subs and managed OK. Not many teams actually use 3 subs in any meaningful way. At least one is usually a late sub in a forlorn attempt to waste time. And as I've said we went a whole season making the same 2 subs in almost every game and managed to storm the league. We could also reverse things and use him as one of the ridiculous 7 named subs and stick him on in games where we need to tighten up the midfield (which he does better than th eother options).

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.

Reasonable point that in another year he may have totally gone, we don't know. I see nothing wrong in having players in the squad with limitations. Ledley King can't train tey Spurs see him as worth having, Beckham is seen as worth a place in the England squad just for his ability to put in a 10 minute shift at the end of a game. Gunnarsson isn;t in the classof either but if in the round he adds tot he squad on and off the field then playing 60 mins (or 2 games in every 3) is not necessarily an issue IMHO.

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!

He may not get selected for every game, and he wouldn;t get subbed in every game. Given that many managers make the same substitutions pretty regularly this hardly seems a departure from standard practice.

[brendywendy]

id give him a contract just cos im sentimental and oxf*rd love boris

[Hoop Blah]

He might not get selected no, but that wasn't the scenario you were putting forwards.

RE King and Beckham, as you say he isn't half as important to our team as either of those two players. If he was a creative player who had a rare ability to come on and create something out of nothing I'd be more open to the idea. He's not though, although he has popped up with some crucial goals at times to be fair to him, but it's not his 'stock delivery' is it?

As for only having one sub in the past, that was then and not now when you opposition has 3 subs to make and when the game is played at a totally different pace than before. If it wasn't a valuable asset to have why don't we just send out the bare eleven and not bother with subs at all like we did back in the 60's and before?

[Sun Tzu]

He might not get selected no, but that wasn't the scenario you were putting forwards.

?? I didn;t put forward a scenario. You said that you wouldn't have someone who couldn;t play the majority of the time, I pointedout that EVEN if he only played 60 mins it would still be the vast majority of the time. I didn't actually suggest that we could just ask him to play for an hour !

As for only having one sub in the past, that was then and not now when you opposition has 3 subs to make and when the game is played at a totally different pace than before. If it wasn't a valuable asset to have why don't we just send out the bare eleven and not bother with subs at all like we did back in the 60's and before?

3 subs is just a random number. And you miss the key point that most of the time teams don't make 3 significant substitutions, or that many subs are preplanned and regular swaps. I'd be happy to have the benefit of an influential player for 60 minutes rather than not have him at all. The question (which I rasied at the start) is whether Gunnarsson is that sort of player !

[Ian Royal]

I'm with Hoop Blah.

regardless of Bryn's clear quality, he cannot produce that quality game after game on current evidence, even just for 60 minutes. Then there's the issue of two games in a week. It is one thing to make preplanned offensive substitutions to have fresh legs to attack tiring players, but totally different to have a more defensively minded substitution required simply because your player is going to run out of steam.

He's not exactly going to be especially cheap. He isn't the future. We have a bloated midfield squad with Cisse, Karacan, Tabb & Howard all capable of playing essentially the same role as Gunnarsson.

Personally I'd much rather keep Tabb, Howard and Karacan who all have at least a reasonable amount of experience and years ahead of them. Than Gunnarsson. Cisse is the worst of the lot and if we aren't going to use him as a defender he should also be gone in the summer.

[Sun Tzu]

It is one thing to make preplanned offensive substitutions to have fresh legs to attack tiring players, but totally different to have a more defensively minded substitution required simply because your player is going to run out of steam.

So you'd have no problem taking Player A - let's call him BG - (a primarily holding defensive midfielder) off after 60 minutes and replacing him with a more attacking, creative midfielder Player B - let's call him MM - as a preplanned offensive substitution designed to allow fresh legs to get at tiring opponents ? You seem usnure of which side of the fence is which !!

And as has been pointed out Bryn is quite capable of playing more than 60 minutes anyway.

[TFF]

id give him a contract just cos im sentimental and oxf*rd love boris

Wise words

[Hoop Blah]

It is one thing to make preplanned offensive substitutions to have fresh legs to attack tiring players, but totally different to have a more defensively minded substitution required simply because your player is going to run out of steam.

So you'd have no problem taking Player A - let's call him BG - (a primarily holding defensive midfielder) off after 60 minutes and replacing him with a more attacking, creative midfielder Player B - let's call him MM - as a preplanned offensive substitution designed to allow fresh legs to get at tiring opponents ? You seem usnure of which side of the fence is which !!

And as has been pointed out Bryn is quite capable of playing more than 60 minutes anyway.

That's different, you're taking off a defensive player and replacing them with an attacking player. What I was talking about, and I presume Ian agreed with, is replacing an attacker with a 'like for like' attacker (eg Lita coming on for Doyle or Hunt on for Convey) and not upsetting or changing the balance of the side for a tactical reason.

As for 3 subs being a random number, you're still giving the opposition an advantage by gifting them one substitution more than you.

Going back to 'your scenario' of a player only playing 60 minutes every game. It seemed from your post that you were suggesting that was fine. My point is that it would be fine if those 60 minute bursts were for tactical reasons and you could leave him on for 90 without any issue, but if it's because he can't last longer than 60 the reason behind the sub becomes very important.

[Sun Tzu]

Going back to 'your scenario' of a player only playing 60 minutes every game. It seemed from your post that you were suggesting that was fine. My point is that it would be fine if those 60 minute bursts were for tactical reasons and you could leave him on for 90 without any issue, but if it's because he can't last longer than 60 the reason behind the sub becomes very important.

But as we've both agreed that he can play more than 60 this seems a rather dead end to go up....

And as I mentioned I didn't make any claim that only playing 60 minutes was 'fine'. I simply pointed out that if the criteria as defined by you (that a player should be capable of playing the majority of the time) then playing 60 minutes in every game more than met that.

Does the 3rd sub give an advantage ? Hard to say. Is 5 minutes of a player who is off the pace and probably not quite warmed up a big advantage ? Sometimes that late sub will nick a goal, but I suspect it's not an especially big deal. Especially if you have a situation where the 60 minute player always gives you a solid performance and then his 30 minute replacement puts in a good shift as well.

[papereyes]

We have a bloated midfield squad with Cisse, Karacan, Tabb & Howard all capable of playing essentially the same role as Gunnarsson.

oh

joy

[loyalroyal4life]

pay on play basis

[Ian Royal]

It is one thing to make preplanned offensive substitutions to have fresh legs to attack tiring players, but totally different to have a more defensively minded substitution required simply because your player is going to run out of steam.

So you'd have no problem taking Player A - let's call him BG - (a primarily holding defensive midfielder) off after 60 minutes and replacing him with a more attacking, creative midfielder Player B - let's call him MM - as a preplanned offensive substitution designed to allow fresh legs to get at tiring opponents ? You seem usnure of which side of the fence is which !!

And as has been pointed out Bryn is quite capable of playing more than 60 minutes anyway.

LOL @ MM being used for his fresh legs!

Once in a while. Although he's failed to manage to play many consecutive games effectively.

Why build a team around an older midfielder that needs replacing and can't necessarily play regularly, when you have plenty of other decent options and need to build for the future and save money.

Bryn is one of the easist to get rid of and doesn't have a great deal left in him as a regular first team player. The ideal person to shift without it costing us anything.

[Ian Royal]

Going back to 'your scenario' of a player only playing 60 minutes every game. It seemed from your post that you were suggesting that was fine. My point is that it would be fine if those 60 minute bursts were for tactical reasons and you could leave him on for 90 without any issue, but if it's because he can't last longer than 60 the reason behind the sub becomes very important.

But as we've both agreed that he can play more than 60 this seems a rather dead end to go up....

And as I mentioned I didn't make any claim that only playing 60 minutes was 'fine'. I simply pointed out that if the criteria as defined by you (that a player should be capable of playing the majority of the time) then playing 60 minutes in every game more than met that.

Does the 3rd sub give an advantage ? Hard to say. Is 5 minutes of a player who is off the pace and probably not quite warmed up a big advantage ? Sometimes that late sub will nick a goal, but I suspect it's not an especially big deal. Especially if you have a situation where the 60 minute player always gives you a solid performance and then his 30 minute replacement puts in a good shift as well.

A regular first team player needs to be capable of playing 90 minutes week in week out. Bryn is not capable of that IMO and I suspect the opinion of many others.

[Sun Tzu]

Why build a team around an older midfielder that needs replacing and can't necessarily play regularly, when you have plenty of other decent options and need to build for the future and save money.

You wouldn't.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from to be honest.

[Ian Royal]

Why build a team around an older midfielder that needs replacing and can't necessarily play regularly, when you have plenty of other decent options and need to build for the future and save money.

You wouldn't.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from to be honest.

Picking someone to play every game for the first team and planning one of your three subsitutions based on them playing doesn't come even slightly close to building a team around someone then?

[Row Z Royal]

id give him a contract just cos im sentimental and oxf*rd love boris

Absofeckinglutely.


The campaign starts here:

SIGN HIM UP

[Sun Tzu]

A regular first team player needs to be capable of playing 90 minutes week in week out. Bryn is not capable of that IMO and I suspect the opinion of many others.

Obviously a regular first team player needs to play regularly. I'm not sure that needed saying ! But equally obvioulsy they don;t have to play 90 minutes every week. I refer you to previous references to Glen '60 minutes' Little.

However a player can still make a significant contribution even if they don't play every minute of every game. Whether Bryn makes that contribution we don't know, but I'm happy to look a bit beyond the number of minutes of playing time a player has when deciding whether they are worth a deal. McDermott will know whether the other qualities Bryn has compensate for the fact that some fans think he can;t run any more !!

[Sun Tzu]

Why build a team around an older midfielder that needs replacing and can't necessarily play regularly, when you have plenty of other decent options and need to build for the future and save money.

You wouldn't.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from to be honest.

Picking someone to play every game for the first team and planning one of your three subsitutions based on them playing doesn't come even slightly close to building a team around someone then?

It probably would. If anyone did that.

It's not what has been suggested though.

I wouldn't build a team round him. I would be happy if he was kept on because of what he might add to the squad and if that involved him playing less than 90 minutes sometimes that's fine by me.

[Ian Royal]

A regular first team player needs to be capable of playing 90 minutes week in week out. Bryn is not capable of that IMO and I suspect the opinion of many others.

Obviously a regular first team player needs to play regularly. I'm not sure that needed saying ! But equally obvioulsy they don;t have to play 90 minutes every week. I refer you to previous references to Glen '60 minutes' Little.

However a player can still make a significant contribution even if they don't play every minute of every game. Whether Bryn makes that contribution we don't know, but I'm happy to look a bit beyond the number of minutes of playing time a player has when deciding whether they are worth a deal. McDermott will know whether the other qualities Bryn has compensate for the fact that some fans think he can;t run any more !!

BIG difference between being subbed regularly because the sub is available to you to use and having to make that sub in most games or you lose effectiveness.

BIG difference between attacking substitutions and defending substitutions.

Little (not including loan) was plenty capable of playing 90 minutes regularly. However it was of tactical benefit to us to make attacking substitutions and keep him as fresh as possible. Same with Convey.

How many unnecessary defensive substitutions do you see being made regularly? Because I can't think of many.

You seem to be completely changing what you're saying. First he's going to play 60 minutes every week. Now your not suggesting he plays regularly?

I give up on you.

[Sun Tzu]

BIG difference between being subbed regularly because the sub is available to you to use and having to make that sub in most games or you lose effectiveness.

Not really. If a player goes off he goes off. The reason isn't that important. You never make a sub just becasue you have a sub, you always do it for a reason. And if that reason is that you WANT to get 60 minutes from a player rather than get NOTHING then that seems reasonable.

BIG difference between attacking substitutions and defending substitutions.

Indeed. Although in case you weren;t aware you can take off a defensive player and replace him with any type of player. You can change formation, you can do anything you want !!

Little (not including loan) was plenty capable of playing 90 minutes regularly.

How would you know ? He never did it ! He had a knackered back most of the time anyway and given that he never ran anywhere you'd hope he could stroll through 90 minutes sometimes. Of course Bryn can do 90 as well !!

How many unnecessary defensive substitutions do you see being made regularly? Because I can't think of many.

Please list the ones you can think of.

You seem to be completely changing what you're saying. First he's going to play 60 minutes every week. Now your not suggesting he plays regularly?.

No. You just don;t read what is said ! I simply pointed out to my learned friend that if Bryn played 60 minutes every week then he WOULD be playing the majority of the time, which is what had been suggested was required. I didn;t suggest it was how he should be used, simply that it is how he IS being used (sometimes) and it fits with what Hoop Blah said was required.....
My point all along has been that a new deal for Bryn would be about MORE than just a number of minutes playing time. I've been consistent with that.

I give up on you.

That's your prerogative but I seem to remember this happening before. You leap into a thread, misunderstand what is being said then get arsey because your cockeyed version of the discussion is challenged.
I can see the arguement for Bryn not getting a new deal, but I can also see that McDermott may see him as being a highly influential (and stablising) member of the squad and offers him a year whilst recognising that he may not get 46 x 90 minutes out of him. it's an interesting equation to work out.