Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Conclusive proof that having a small squad is better?

Comments

  • I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY
    I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY Posts: 4,608
    I wouldnt say so, most clubs that struggle change personnel etc. Also clubs with zero money need short term loan deals etc to survive.
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,231
    edited May 2015
    Conclusive proof that having a settled side is better? Aston Villa League Champions 80/81. Players used: 14
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,316
    shirty5 said:

    Conclusive proof that having a settled side is better? Aston Villa League Champions 80/81. Players used: 14

    Sample size of 1 = conclusive proof, glad you don't do my accounts
  • North Lower Neil
    North Lower Neil Posts: 22,954
    edited May 2015
    Didn't work for us about halfway through the season.

    It just shows the teams that were doing ok didn't need to change things up.
  • North Lower Neil
    North Lower Neil Posts: 22,954
    Could show teams that were lucky with injuries benefited, too.
  • Pedro45
    Pedro45 Posts: 5,823
    Not proof at all. A settled team is best, everyone knows that! If you get lucky with injuries and suspensions, that's good for the season usually. If you are unlucky, then anything can happen. Overall, I'm surprised that these numbers are that high...
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,225
    shirty5 said:

    Conclusive proof that having a settled side is better? Aston Villa League Champions 80/81. Players used: 14

    this
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,225
    Proves why Stats shouldnt be used in isolation and without considering other factors when coming to conclusions
  • MrLargo
    MrLargo Posts: 7,989
    None of those teams listed have got a small squad. 24 players, the lowest total in each division, is two players in each position plus two more - that strikes me as a well-proportioned squad rather than a small one.

    The only thing that this table tells you is that you're likely to get relegated if you end up going through a multitude of players throughout the course of the season. Other than that, it's useless.
  • paulsturgess
    paulsturgess Posts: 3,802
    edited May 2015
    Indeed. The article is entitled number of players used, not size of the squad. If anything the number of players used reflects the fact that the clubs who used more players had the smaller squads, as they've constantly had to dip into the loan market / youth teams throughout the season to make the numbers up, whereas Brizzle / Bmouth etc probably had bigger squads with adequate players in all positions from day 1 so haven't had to do that.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Proves why Stats shouldnt be used in isolation and without considering other factors when coming to conclusions

    40% of statistics are wrong.
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,850
    Yes, it's slightly simplistic, but that Championship table has an incredible correlation with the actual league table, and the L1 and L2 tables match up pretty well too.

    Clearly, a sensible squad of around 25-30 decent players and talented youngsters which you stick to is the recipe for success rather than the masses of short term loans that struggling teams resort to.
  • cafctom
    cafctom Posts: 11,372
    Just suggests that less chopping and changing works. Those Brentford, Wolves and Bournemouth sides that top the list all largely made up of players who were promoted together and know how to win together.
  • redlanered
    redlanered Posts: 2,195
    edited May 2015
    Not proof at all. Take our goalkeeping situation. We had a small squad, but had to supplement it when Henderson got injured and Popey wobbled.

    Simply means that teams doing well don't have to chop and change so much.

    Chelsea have an enormous squad but could afford to loan loads of them out.

    Remember stats fans, correlation and causation are not the same thing!
  • Dansk_Red
    Dansk_Red Posts: 5,727
    cafctom said:

    Just suggests that less chopping and changing works. Those Brentford, Wolves and Bournemouth sides that top the list all largely made up of players who were promoted together and know how to win together.

    Plus those teams did not change their managers, which must have an effect on the number of players used.

  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,225
    Burton Albion buck that trend
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,850

    Not proof at all. Take our goalkeeping situation. We had a small squad, but had to supplement it when Henderson got injured and Popey wobbled.

    Simply means that teams doing well don't have to chop and change so much.

    Chelsea have an enormous squad but could afford to loan loads of them out.

    Remember stats fans, correlation and causation are not the same thing!

    But then when Pope wobbled, surely he would have done better than Etheridge? As it was, we ended using 4 keepers this season
  • stackitsteve
    stackitsteve Posts: 12,102

    Proves why Stats shouldnt be used in isolation and without considering other factors when coming to conclusions

    40% of statistics are wrong.
    And 82% of statistics are made up on the spot.
  • Fumbluff
    Fumbluff Posts: 10,127
    83% of what you just said is wrong
  • Bigbadbozman
    Bigbadbozman Posts: 1,775
    100% of Millwall is wrong
  • Sponsored links:



  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 16,930

    100% of Millwall is wrong

    Can they work that out on their six fingers...
  • Stig
    Stig Posts: 29,026
    There may be a correlation, but correlation does not imply causation. As others have indicated above, it looks more like the causation (if any) is the other way: If your team is playing well, you don't need to chop and change.
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,231
    Leuth said:

    shirty5 said:

    Conclusive proof that having a settled side is better? Aston Villa League Champions 80/81. Players used: 14

    Sample size of 1 = conclusive proof, glad you don't do my accounts
    Considering that was off the top of my head. Btw, if you need a hand with your accounts
    send me a PM.

    Other examples. League games only.

    Nottingham Forest League Champions 77/78. Players Used: 16
    Liverpool League Champions 83/84. Players Used: 15
    Arsenal League Champions 03/04. Players Used: 22
    Chelsea League Champions 14/15. Players Used: 20
  • Pretty obvious. The better players you have, the more regularly you play them!
  • Lincsaddick
    Lincsaddick Posts: 32,355
    edited June 2015
    Good post Callum .. a small squad is one of the managerial tenets of Jose Mourinho .. that's why Chelsea is able to loan out 25 to 30 players a season ((:>) .. it makes good sense, small squads, provided of course that the players are all capable, are easier to manage, easier to get 'singing from the same hymn sheet' with regard to tactics and methods of play, team spirit is probably better in smaller units (I'm sure there is a CL psychologist who can lecture on this topic), the players get to know one another and will stick up for one another and of course the wages and overheads for a professional club are lower than with having the expense of well paid bench warmers and training ground turner uppers.
    The tables provided, with one or two exceptions, certainly bear out the theory, at least so far as last season was concerned