Away Match Day Thread +++6/04/2019 Walsall v OUFC match day thread+++

If you find a fullback who's quick, good at defending and good at attacking, he's not going to be playing at League One level unless he's on loan to get experience.
 
Do u consider skarz an attacking over lapping full back ? I’d say he was more in the vein of what ruffels gives, very strong defensively, good in the air and positionally who gets forward when needed?

You also mention the best teams retain the ball, on the whole both long and ruffels ball retention and distribution are excellent. Especially when u consider both are actually still learning the role.
Agree, Skarz was in no way an attacking full back.
I would argue that Ruffels and Long are more attacking.
And as a previous midfield player Ruffels distribution is pretty good.
The thing that I also like about both full backs is that they are good in the air which isn't a bad thing for Division 3.
 
Do u consider skarz an attacking over lapping full back ? I’d say he was more in the vein of what ruffels gives, very strong defensively, good in the air and positionally who gets forward when needed?.

I liked Skarz but didn't he struggle to get in Bury's team last season? and remember reading some of the their supporters comments about him. was surprised as thought he'd do a solid job there for them
 
would definitely have a solid defender like Ruffels over an attacking one like Marvin Johnson
 
Ruffels and Long are perfectly competent L1 full backs. We also have a back up on the right (Hanson). Spending our budget on new full backs would be a bit daft when there are obvious -and expensive - first XI holes that need filling (a left sided centre back, two strikers) as well as perhaps trying to secure Kashi, loan in Sinclair etc.
 
Obviously all positions are key, but I believe if the right personnel are selected in these roles then they can enhance the team further. I’d say most successful teams tend to have key players in these positions.

You could be talking about any position though. Most successful teams tend to have key centre backs/centre midfielders/strikers. The right personnel being selected in any position can enhance the team further. I wouldn't say that full back is this special position which you have to get right above all other to be successful.
 
Basically:

Ruffels and Long have been two of our best, most consistent performers recently

On current form they're both 7/10 players every week and more than good enough to start next season for us

Yes, obviously we would take upgrades on both, as any team would for any player

With our limited budget, we have bigger problems which need sorting such as LCB and ST/CF

Most people, if given the chance to sign one top, top quality player for next season, would have us sign a CB or striker rather than another fullback.
 
I think some need to get real, it's clear from the accademy update that budgets are being reduced so I don't think we'll be replacing perfectly good players like Josh and Sam when there are going to be players like Curtis who will need to be replaced.
 
I think some need to get real, it's clear from the accademy update that budgets are being reduced so I don't think we'll be replacing perfectly good players like Josh and Sam when there are going to be players like Curtis who will need to be replaced.
Its clear budgets are being reduced thats a strong statement prove it. That's just how you see it if you said i think budgets are being reduced yes but clear no.
 
"It is no secret that there have been some internal financial challenges this season across the club and every department, Academy included, is going to have to adapt to this new landscape for next season."
 
Yet some people are still thinking Erick is riding in on his magical horse.

Tbf, we could make decent savings on the budget just by not replacing Shearer, Obika and then chuck in Pekalski's wages and wouldn't notice any difference to the 1st team squad.
 
Tbf, we could make decent savings on the budget just by not replacing Shearer, Obika and then chuck in Pekalski's wages and wouldn't notice any difference to the 1st team squad.
Also we’ve been paying Hall and Carruthers all season
 
Tbf, we could make decent savings on the budget just by not replacing Shearer, Obika and then chuck in Pekalski's wages and wouldn't notice any difference to the 1st team squad.
Absolutely. I would imagine that those three players alone are worth a combined 5k a week. Maybe even more if Pekalski was given a particularly awful contract from our perspective, which I’d imagine is pretty likely.

We could have a squad of 20 first team players with an average wage of 3k a week and it would still be around the 3m a year mark, which would be a substantial saving on this year’s budget.

There’s definitely scope to have a competitive squad with a reasonable outlay. Just means the summer window will need to see an improvement in terms of judgement.
 
Absolutely. I would imagine that those three players alone are worth a combined 5k a week. Maybe even more if Pekalski was given a particularly awful contract from our perspective, which I’d imagine is pretty likely.

We could have a squad of 20 first team players with an average wage of 3k a week and it would still be around the 3m a year mark, which would be a substantial saving on this year’s budget.

There’s definitely scope to have a competitive squad with a reasonable outlay. Just means the summer window will need to see an improvement in terms of judgement.

Makes sense.
Also within a couple of years let's hope that we see a number of the youngsters make it.
I assume that getting say 4 to 5 in the matchday squad would save a few £s as compared to having seasoned Pros included.
There will always be injuries but considering we have paid good money for Pekalski, Shearer, Obika, Holmes, Carruthers, Hall and they have hardly played this season we must be able to cut the wages and have a competitive squad.
In addition if DF is retiring don't we have enough coaches?
 
Perhaps this 'new financial landscape' will see us releasing Hall. Even on a deal where he got paid when he played, surely the poor chap must be given some sort of living wage to keep the wolf from the door over the year?
 
Perhaps this 'new financial landscape' will see us releasing Hall. Even on a deal where he got paid when he played, surely the poor chap must be given some sort of living wage to keep the wolf from the door over the year?
Pay as you play deals always include a basic salary. If a player wants 2k a week but the club only offers a PAYP deal, this will often mean something along the lines of a 1k basic with the other 1k only being paid if they’re fit enough to be included in the 18 man squad. There are also usually break clauses in there that specify if a player fails to be fit for the squad X times over a period of Y that the club can terminate the deal. This is usually used in the case of appearance based contracts that are over a period of more than one season. I’d be very surprised if Mackie’s two year deal with us hasn’t got this sort of arrangement, for example.
 
Back
Top Bottom