Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Do we have strength in depth?

Do we have strength in depth?

+10
finlaymcdanger
karlypants
boltonbonce
Sluffy
wessy
terenceanne
Growler
wanderlust
Whitesince63
Biggie
14 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Reply to topic

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

1Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Do we have strength in depth? Fri Jun 24 2022, 23:23

Biggie

Biggie
Admin

Traff

Jones Santos Aimson Johnstone

Bradley Iredale
Isgove John

MJ Dempsey Sheehan
Sadlier Morley Lee Dapo

Dion Baka Dadi


I think we have so many players that it'll take a lot of rotation to keep them all happy. But rotation can lead to tinkering and not getting a settled side.

From a fully for squad who do you pick, and how do you justify leaving any out?

http://boltonnuts.forumotion.co.uk

2Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Fri Jun 24 2022, 23:25

Biggie

Biggie
Admin

Pick your best eleven...

Harder than you think!

http://boltonnuts.forumotion.co.uk

3Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Sat Jun 25 2022, 09:34

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

The good thing is that we have 5 subs this year so I think keeping players happy will be less of a problem as Evatt usually makes changes to keep players fit for his system. We are definitely still missing a big partner for Rico as neither Aimson nor Johnson are the business there but I’m sure Evatt knows that and will sort it before we kick off. I’d also like another MJ type for midfield but to be fair both Morley and Dempsey both do have battling qualities and you never know if one of our B Team might come through?

4Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Sun Jun 26 2022, 01:35

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

If Trafford and Santos are injured I think we'd struggle as things stand.
If we don't get another CB of at least the same quality as Santos I think we'll struggle defensively anyway.
Also think we need better quality than MJ and Thomason to sit in front of the CBs.

That apart, there's enough in midfield and up front to have a decent stab at it, but we need to improve tactically especially with speed of transition and final third movement and passing - however the personnel are there to give options. There's still talk about Barkhuisen but I don't think he's needed.

Two quality signings at CB and DM would be enough for me.

5Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Sun Jun 26 2022, 10:48

Growler


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly

I think if the target for the season is to finish 9th again there is strength in depth to do that but I don't think it is a promotion winning squad.
Central defence is the main weakness and I don't think there is a central midfield or front two that is automatic promotion standard.
We don't need great strength in all areas of the team to finish 2nd in Div 3, Parky's promotion winning team only really had a quality central defence but I don't see any area of this team being real quality for the league.

6Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Sun Jun 26 2022, 12:37

terenceanne

terenceanne
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Maybe not outright promotion but surely enough for a play-off spot. For me we need a good, experienced back-up keeper. If Issy and Sheehan come back that's like having two new signings right there. January will be another window if we need more IMO. And of course whoever Ian brings in shortly to add to the squad.

7Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Sun Jun 26 2022, 18:52

wessy

wessy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

We have 21 experienced pro's (Kerchunga/ Dixon  missing original post) plus any under age or B team players so a decent squad.

I would like to see a permenant keeper, Trafford great while it lasts but we really should have one of our own. Need another center half minimum perhaps another defensive mid or wing back. but January gave us depth.   Form since January if repeated makes us a contender.

8Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Sun Jun 26 2022, 20:13

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

wessy wrote:We have 21 experienced pro's (Kerchunga/ Dixon  missing original post) plus any under age or B team players so a decent squad.

I would like to see a permenant keeper, Trafford great while it lasts but we really should have one of our own. Need another center half minimum perhaps another defensive mid or wing back. but January gave us depth.   Form since January if repeated makes us a contender.
Form since January is misleading - we got found out by the top 6 teams since January and that is the level we need to achieve - and maybe if we get a quality CB and DM we can get there.

9Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Sun Jun 26 2022, 21:14

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:
wessy wrote:We have 21 experienced pro's (Kerchunga/ Dixon  missing original post) plus any under age or B team players so a decent squad.

I would like to see a permenant keeper, Trafford great while it lasts but we really should have one of our own. Need another center half minimum perhaps another defensive mid or wing back. but January gave us depth.   Form since January if repeated makes us a contender.
Form since January is misleading - we got found out by the top 6 teams since January and that is the level we need to achieve - and maybe if we get a quality CB and DM we can get there.

???

NOT TRUE.

From the 29th January we played only 4 of the teams that finished in the top 6 at seasons end.

Sunderland (finished 5th) we beat 6-0 we did lose to the Dons (3rd) late Feb, but went on to draw with Wednesday (4th) and Wigan (1st) towards the end of the season.

So - Played 4 W1  D2  L1.

Seems we can and did hold our own against the teams that finished in the top six when you include in our signings from the January window and contrary to what you have claimed to be the case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

10Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Sun Jun 26 2022, 23:59

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

My mistake - I thought Portsmouth and Plymouth were top 6 at the time when we played them.

11Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Mon Jun 27 2022, 00:57

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:My mistake - I thought Portsmouth and Plymouth were top 6 at the time when we played them.

They might have been, so what?

The position at any time in the season is spurious in that you can't measure all the teams equally against each other simply because some teams have easier runs of games (and thus points won) than others.

It is only at season end when everyone has played their full fixtures against everyone that a true picture emerges ranking the teams in the order they performed over the full season.

Of course you knew all that.

The fact that both Portsmouth and Plymouth dropped out of the top 6 - underlines the fact that they had played their easiest games prior to the end of season and found results that much harder to achieve at the run in to the end of the season.

Anyway fwiw we drew with Portsmouth and lost to Plymouth.

So even if I humoured you and included those results with the other four then our record would be -

P6  W1  D3  L2  

Which would still indicate that we could and did hold our own against 4 of the top 6 teams in the division (even two of those that were there on current form and not on merit over the length of the season).

Hardly 'found out by them' as you had falsely thought to be the case.

12Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Mon Jun 27 2022, 01:32

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

:facepalm:

Will someone have a word please?

13Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Mon Jun 27 2022, 01:57

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote::facepalm:

Will someone have a word please?

What's your problem?

You said something and the facts simply showed you were wrong.

You could have always have checked out what you thought before posting or simply accepted that you got it wrong when the facts are shown afterwards.

That's how it works for most of us - not you obviously.

Look, I remembered that we beat Sunderland 6-0 and drew with Wigan and Wednesday, so I thought straight away what you'd said wasn't right - I knew we'd already held our own results wise with at least half of the top 6 without even having to look anything up!!

I expect most of us remembered those results, even you if you had thought for a second before posting what you did...

Took me about 20 seconds to check out the other results using the sites own data base run by BTID!

It really was that simple and easy to do.

14Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Mon Jun 27 2022, 10:55

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Sluffy, sorry mate but no need to be so nasty in your reply to Lusty. You’re right in what you say but come on, let’s not start the arguments again. I am of course perfect and so don’t expect everyone else to have my expertise but I’m always polite when I point out their lack of knowledge compared to mine. 😌🤗

15Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Mon Jun 27 2022, 12:03

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, sorry mate but no need to be so nasty in your reply to Lusty. You’re right in what you say but come on, let’s not start the arguments again. I am of course perfect and so don’t expect everyone else to have my expertise but I’m always polite when I point out their lack of knowledge compared to mine. 😌🤗

???

Nasty???

Where have I been nasty?

Look at things through my eyes, I clearly knew what he claimed was wrong - I'm sure you and most others would know that too if you had thought about it just for a second.  The thing is though that must people don't seem to think and just carry on the 'myth' based on what was said.

I wasn't nasty, rude, obnoxious or any other word you would like to choose in my replies - I simply stated what he said was untrue and gave the facts - and a link to them.

As always Wanderlust can never admit to being wrong and replied in the way he did.

OK, not a problem, particularly because what he added in his post did nothing to change his overall point he was making was still wrong - as I explained in my reply.

What exactly do you view that I'd done wrong at all?

I can't see anything?

He then decided to bring in others to escalate the matter and make out that I was being some sort of a prick or something - I wasn't being one though?

I went to the trouble of explaining how I knew right from the very start he was factually incorrect and I believed I've been anything but 'nasty' to him.

He DOES post stuff often that is incorrect and he DOESN'T ever accept he's wrong about anything.

That's not me being nasty, that's me stating a fact.


I suspect very much though that it is just him trying to stir the site up again because I'd called him out earlier that day for posting a borderline racist remark - which unsurprisingly he's kept quiet about ever since!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

16Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Mon Jun 27 2022, 13:12

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, sorry mate but no need to be so nasty in your reply to Lusty. You’re right in what you say but come on, let’s not start the arguments again. I am of course perfect and so don’t expect everyone else to have my expertise but I’m always polite when I point out their lack of knowledge compared to mine. 😌🤗
I agree with 63. Shocked I may need some therapy.

17Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Mon Jun 27 2022, 13:42

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

boltonbonce wrote:
Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, sorry mate but no need to be so nasty in your reply to Lusty. You’re right in what you say but come on, let’s not start the arguments again. I am of course perfect and so don’t expect everyone else to have my expertise but I’m always polite when I point out their lack of knowledge compared to mine. 😌🤗
I agree with 63. Shocked I may need some therapy.


???

I've not been nasty?

I've not been anything!

What are you two on about???

..dunno..


And if I'm right in what I say - and provided the facts to prove so, then which one of us is wanting to continue on the argument?

Not me!

18Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Mon Jun 27 2022, 14:45

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:

???

I've not been nasty?

I've not been anything!

What are you two on about???

..dunno..


And if I'm right in what I say - and provided the facts to prove so, then which one of us is wanting to continue on the argument?

Not me!
I don't agree with 63 on many things, but I'm by his side on this. Although on foot. Smile
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

19Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Mon Jun 27 2022, 15:25

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

boltonbonce wrote:
I don't agree with 63 on many things, but I'm by his side on this. Although on foot. Smile


So you've said but you still haven't explained where you believe me to have been in any way nasty, nor why you may think it is me who is continuing the arguments - particularly because you've twice now agreed with 63 that I was right in what I had said???

I'm not the one in some sort of argumentative denial of the facts yet again.

20Do we have strength in depth?  Empty Re: Do we have strength in depth? Mon Jun 27 2022, 16:35

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

But you were actually wrong. I said we need to be able to beat teams in the top 6 (at the point we played them) and you changed it to "beat teams who had enough points to finish in the top 6 at the end of the season" simply to have a go at me and try - as always - to score points. I won't argue the point because it's not the point. The point is you only made the point-scoring point because it was me who made the original point at the point I first mentioned it.

Point made Smile

But even if we only talk about our record against the teams that finished in the top 6 at the end - P12 W1 D3 LOST 8 i.e. 1 win in twelve - on what planet does that make you right?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Reply to topic

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum