Our most critical season ?

[johnmcormick8]

imo our most critical season was our first back in the prem under Steve Parish ownership. Having survived that we have gradually grown to be a low to mid table prem side.. That's punching up and with 3 trophies we are in dreamland.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

imo our most critical season was our first back in the prem under Steve Parish ownership. Having survived that we have gradually grown to be a low to mid table prem side.. That's punching up and with 3 trophies we are in dreamland.

Yes. We don't aspire to much greatness - We may be in the gutter but we are looking at the kerb.

 

[Save Dwindlehurst]

Not if the Premier League were to funnel more of their income down the pyramid to compensate.

English football has to adapt to the demands of UEFA sadly. They wanted more midweek slots for their competitions which is why cup replays were ended. The alternative would have been to cut the Premier League to 18 clubs as happened to the French Ligue 1 for the 2023/24 season. Germany have been an 18 club league for ages, so only Spain, Italy and us have a 20 club league. UEFA would dearly love all three of us to reduce to 18 clubs. More revenue for UEFA then and less for the domestic leagues.

The Premier League has no interest in funneling money to anyone other than its members. They couldn’t give a toss about the ‘pyramid’. Greedy, rapacious organisation. Much fairer system before its advent. Proper pyramid then.

 

[ASCPFC]

The Premier League has no interest in funneling money to anyone other than its members. They couldn’t give a toss about the ‘pyramid’. Greedy, rapacious organisation. Much fairer system before its advent. Proper pyramid then.

Wouldn't need so much money if it weren't for players wages. Add in transfer fees and it isn't sustainable. That's where something needs to happen.

 

[Runningman]

Wouldn't need so much money if it weren't for players wages. Add in transfer fees and it isn't sustainable. That's where something needs to happen.

Wage cap wouldn’t work tho. Employers would just find other ways to pay the players. Turn up for a talk in Saudi. That’s gotta be worth £10m a time.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

I don't think this is why the squad has been enlarged. I think the reason is that trying to complete the fixture list with the squad we had last season resulted in endless injuries which all but cost us our Premier League place. OG admitted he had thought the squad was large enough but seriously underestimated the demands of the Premier League.

I get that, and hopefully we will be better off for it. I am not so sure, though.

For one thing, getting through busy periods with everyone fit and healthy doesn't get points on the board. That still depends on how good an XI you can field at any one time. I'm sure we could rotate Pino, McNeill, Kamada, Osorio, or even the hapless Guessand across the two positions behind one of Larsen or Nketiah in such a way that none of them play three games in a row. That in turn would reduce the chance of them getting injured or fatigued later on.

But so what? What does it matter if none of them are good enough to get results? As I said earlier, having two good (or good enough) players for each position is one thing, but we seem to have reduced the quality to increase the quantity. I recognise the flaw in relying on the same players every week, but at least if they are good enough you've got a chance. It worked up to now.

Secondly, and in any event, the chances are that we will only be in Europe for a part of this season, and then not again for some time. Meanwhile, we are signing players on three or four year deals. What happens once we are out of Europe? It will be too many players for too few opportunities.

We already have six senior players left out of the euro squad, all getting paid for nothing as far as that competition is concerned. I can't see how that's good. The number of unused players will only increase when we are out of Europe. Its possibly a bad use of money and not healthy generally.

How many of these players had any reason to think they would be so surplus to requirements when they signed for us? Why wouldn't even the best of eggs not sulk a bit at seeing their career opportunities undermined in that way? The whole point of signing for Palace if you are a good player is that you get to play every week. I can't see how will it get the best out Mingueza, for instance, to play only sometimes. Did he really sign here to be cover for someone? Are we going to get the best from him when he does play if he is involved only intermittently? He might avoid injury and fatigue, but will he ever be as sharp and focussed as he could be? I'm not so sure, and I think much the same could be asked of two thirds of our squad.

We seem to have built a weak but deep squad to address Europe, which we will not be in very long, whilst seeing our team become worse as a result. I just don't think clubs like Palace can operate like that. We need to spend every penny building a good team plus three of four senior subs first and foremost. Depth beyond that feels like a luxury we can't afford, and don't really need most years. It just feels like the wrong model for us.

 

[Save Dwindlehurst]

I get that, and hopefully we will be better off for it. I am not so sure, though.

For one thing, getting through busy periods with everyone fit and healthy doesn't get points on the board. That still depends on how good an XI you can field at any one time. I'm sure we could rotate Pino, McNeill, Kamada, Osorio, or even the hapless Guessand across the two positions behind one of Larsen or Nketiah in such a way that none of them play three games in a row. That in turn would reduce the chance of them getting injured or fatigued later on.

But so what? What does it matter if none of them are good enough to get results? As I said earlier, having two good (or good enough) players for each position is one thing, but we seem to have reduced the quality to increase the quantity. I recognise the flaw in relying on the same players every week, but at least if they are good enough you've got a chance. It worked up to now.

Secondly, and in any event, the chances are that we will only be in Europe for a part of this season, and then not again for some time. Meanwhile, we are signing players on three or four year deals. What happens once we are out of Europe? It will be too many players for too few opportunities.

We already have six senior players left out of the euro squad, all getting paid for nothing as far as that competition is concerned. I can't see how that's good. The number of unused players will only increase when we are out of Europe. Its possibly a bad use of money and not healthy generally.

How many of these players had any reason to think they would be so surplus to requirements when they signed for us? Why wouldn't even the best of eggs not sulk a bit at seeing their career opportunities undermined in that way? The whole point of signing for Palace if you are a good player is that you get to play every week. I can't see how will it get the best out Mingueza, for instance, to play only sometimes. Did he really sign here to be cover for someone? Are we going to get the best from him when he does play if he is involved only intermittently? He might avoid injury and fatigue, but will he ever be as sharp and focussed as he could be? I'm not so sure, and I think much the same could be asked of two thirds of our squad.

We seem to have built a weak but deep squad to address Europe, which we will not be in very long, whilst seeing our team become worse as a result. I just don't think clubs like Palace can operate like that. We need to spend every penny building a good team plus three of four senior subs first and foremost. Depth beyond that feels like a luxury we can't afford, and don't really need most years. It just feels like the wrong model for us.

If we didn’t have this big squad we’d be back to the unenviable position of playing a midfield of Hughes and Lerma together in midfield once injuries and fatigue kick in. Did we ever even score a goal with that line up?
And remember the loans can always go back and excess players sold in the future.
Also I totally disagree that it a weak squad and that we won’t be in Europe for long. That’s just your usual negativity!

 

[Save Dwindlehurst]

I get that, and hopefully we will be better off for it. I am not so sure, though.

For one thing, getting through busy periods with everyone fit and healthy doesn't get points on the board. That still depends on how good an XI you can field at any one time. I'm sure we could rotate Pino, McNeill, Kamada, Osorio, or even the hapless Guessand across the two positions behind one of Larsen or Nketiah in such a way that none of them play three games in a row. That in turn would reduce the chance of them getting injured or fatigued later on.

But so what? What does it matter if none of them are good enough to get results? As I said earlier, having two good (or good enough) players for each position is one thing, but we seem to have reduced the quality to increase the quantity. I recognise the flaw in relying on the same players every week, but at least if they are good enough you've got a chance. It worked up to now.

Secondly, and in any event, the chances are that we will only be in Europe for a part of this season, and then not again for some time. Meanwhile, we are signing players on three or four year deals. What happens once we are out of Europe? It will be too many players for too few opportunities.

We already have six senior players left out of the euro squad, all getting paid for nothing as far as that competition is concerned. I can't see how that's good. The number of unused players will only increase when we are out of Europe. Its possibly a bad use of money and not healthy generally.

How many of these players had any reason to think they would be so surplus to requirements when they signed for us? Why wouldn't even the best of eggs not sulk a bit at seeing their career opportunities undermined in that way? The whole point of signing for Palace if you are a good player is that you get to play every week. I can't see how will it get the best out Mingueza, for instance, to play only sometimes. Did he really sign here to be cover for someone? Are we going to get the best from him when he does play if he is involved only intermittently? He might avoid injury and fatigue, but will he ever be as sharp and focussed as he could be? I'm not so sure, and I think much the same could be asked of two thirds of our squad.

We seem to have built a weak but deep squad to address Europe, which we will not be in very long, whilst seeing our team become worse as a result. I just don't think clubs like Palace can operate like that. We need to spend every penny building a good team plus three of four senior subs first and foremost. Depth beyond that feels like a luxury we can't afford, and don't really need most years. It just feels like the wrong model for us.

A first team with 3-4 senior subs is a ridiculous idea. Half a dozen injuries and suspensions and we’d be screwed! To effectively compete in the Premier League and the cups clubs now need 2 specialist players in EVERY position. Anything less means abandoning the cups as Roy did and risking relegation.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

If we didn’t have this big squad we’d be back to the unenviable position of playing a midfield of Hughes and Lerma together in midfield once injuries and fatigue kick in. Did we ever even score a goal with that line up?
And remember the loans can always go back and excess players sold in the future.
Also I totally disagree that it a weak squad and that we won’t be in Europe for long. That’s just your usual negativity!

Midfield is a good example of where the signings seem to have helped. Timber seems a good enough player to have strengthened our team, whilst keeping Kamada and Wharton (not to mention Hughes and Lerma) has added a bit of depth. All good. Make one good signing and keep what you had.

But nobody can tell me that any combination of Larsen, Nketiah, Pino, Osorio, Kamada, or whoever is anything more than a downgrade on Mateta and Sarr. In other words, unless the latter two play, the team will be weaker. It doesn't matter how many options there are if they aren't very good. Same is true at centre back. We can pick three players there from about six but not be as strong as we were, or need to be.

I just don't see that greater squad depth offsets a weaker XI. If we can get both great. If not, the priority has to be a strong enough team.

Europe seems to be the justification for spreading the money around thinly to create a deeper squad. I actually said we wouldn't be in Europe for long compared to the length of players contracts. Even if we go fairly deep into the knockout phase, it'll be this season and done. We will then need to reduce the squad. Lets hope there will be buyers for all these spare parts we will have lying around, not playing much.

I'm not being negative for it's own sake, I just think that between the choice of coach, the churn in players, and the move from spending what we have on the XI to spreading it around a squad, the club has taken a lot of risks with a method that has always worked up to now.

Hopefully all will be well. It is very different, though.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

A first team with 3-4 senior subs is a ridiculous idea. Half a dozen injuries and suspensions and we’d be screwed! To effectively compete in the Premier League and the cups clubs now need 2 specialist players in EVERY position. Anything less means abandoning the cups as Roy did and risking relegation.

You'd rather have two players for one position, even if neither is very good, than one who is?

 

[MarkA333]

We have multiple options in attack but really only Mateta and Sarr are any good. Midfield is decent with Wharton, Timber and Kamada with adequate back up. Defence is adequate albeit with loanees and injury prone signings.


We are ok in the GK department. It’s not all doom and gloom, just want Mateta, Sarr and somebody decent to play upfront with them.

 

[Save Dwindlehurst]

You'd rather have two players for one position, even if neither is very good, than one who is

I actually think we’ve now got 2 very good players in virtually all positions. A good example is Mitchell/Chilwell. How would we have managed if Mitchell was injured in your scheme of things?
Also extra cover at centre half. Disasi suspended and Riad long term injury. Thankfully we’ve got new signings and loans to cover.
And some excellent utility players like Tomiyasu. And cover for Khalaili in Mingueza.Would you rather have kept a superannuated Clyne? Timber in midfield. Should we just have relied on Hughes and Lerma as back up? Also young talent to blood for the future like Osario and Gozo.
Maybe I’ve just got faith in the players we’ve bought?

 

[MarkA333]

I hope that players like Chilwell, Minguez and maybe one or w/o of the young attackers get some game time in the various cup games. It seems likely that Mitchell won’t sign a new contract and will leave in January as Guehi did running down his contract. Mitchell has been wonderful and not said a word but he saw what Guehi did and will most likely follow suit.

And while we are at it, we can get rid of Larsson and Nketiah at the same time.

That should bring in about 60 million which hopefully we can re invest wisely this time.

 

[CrazyBadger]

I get that, and hopefully we will be better off for it. I am not so sure, though.

For one thing, getting through busy periods with everyone fit and healthy doesn't get points on the board. That still depends on how good an XI you can field at any one time. I'm sure we could rotate Pino, McNeill, Kamada, Osorio, or even the hapless Guessand across the two positions behind one of Larsen or Nketiah in such a way that none of them play three games in a row. That in turn would reduce the chance of them getting injured or fatigued later on.

But so what? What does it matter if none of them are good enough to get results? As I said earlier, having two good (or good enough) players for each position is one thing, but we seem to have reduced the quality to increase the quantity. I recognise the flaw in relying on the same players every week, but at least if they are good enough you've got a chance. It worked up to now.

Secondly, and in any event, the chances are that we will only be in Europe for a part of this season, and then not again for some time. Meanwhile, we are signing players on three or four year deals. What happens once we are out of Europe? It will be too many players for too few opportunities.

We already have six senior players left out of the euro squad, all getting paid for nothing as far as that competition is concerned. I can't see how that's good. The number of unused players will only increase when we are out of Europe. Its possibly a bad use of money and not healthy generally.

How many of these players had any reason to think they would be so surplus to requirements when they signed for us? Why wouldn't even the best of eggs not sulk a bit at seeing their career opportunities undermined in that way? The whole point of signing for Palace if you are a good player is that you get to play every week. I can't see how will it get the best out Mingueza, for instance, to play only sometimes. Did he really sign here to be cover for someone? Are we going to get the best from him when he does play if he is involved only intermittently? He might avoid injury and fatigue, but will he ever be as sharp and focussed as he could be? I'm not so sure, and I think much the same could be asked of two thirds of our squad.

We seem to have built a weak but deep squad to address Europe, which we will not be in very long, whilst seeing our team become worse as a result. I just don't think clubs like Palace can operate like that. We need to spend every penny building a good team plus three of four senior subs first and foremost. Depth beyond that feels like a luxury we can't afford, and don't really need most years. It just feels like the wrong model for us.

Of the 7 players excluded (initially), 4 of them would have no Expectation to be in the European squad:

• Matthews - 3rd Choice, no expectation..
• Franca - Loaned out
• Doucoure - just coming back from Injury
• Riad - Currently long term Injured

Only 3 players could feel genuinely hacked off:

• Guessand - not sure what's happened here, why reSign him only to discard him?
• Lerma - I guess it was decided he was on his way out. Now seems a bit shortsighted based on recent appearence(s)
• Gozo - I'd imagine he was attracted to us partly due to our European place. probably a little disapointed, but at the beginning of his career and he is yet to make any kind of telling involvement to us.

All of these also have a chance to get in in January if they prove themselves (assuming we're still in it!)

As for a team of 'Average' players - with the new additions, we've hardly had the gametime to see any at their best. Players integrate at different speeds, and (especially in defence) time to build Relationships. Timber and Ahanor and are the Standout of the newbies, but there's no reason Osario and/or Gozo cant come good.

Is this our most Crucial season? Any season that has undergone the changes we have since the previous season will be critical.. and a new Manager coming in, having to change system AND integrate new players perhaps makes this harder than most. So it's certainly our most Difficult - since FdB, who had minimal squad changes to deal with(or Vieira, had a good RH Base to help).

But Crucial? if you mean to avoid Relegation, then yes I'd probably say it is. Our first season noone really expected us to stay in the division. Now, with the new stadium and staff outgoings, we're relying on it and relegation now will hit us harder than it would back then.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

I actually think we’ve now got 2 very good players in virtually all positions. A good example is Mitchell/Chilwell. How would we have managed if Mitchell was injured in your scheme of things?
Also extra cover at centre half. Disasi suspended and Riad long term injury. Thankfully we’ve got new signings and loans to cover.
And some excellent utility players like Tomiyasu. And cover for Khalaili in Mingueza.Would you rather have kept a superannuated Clyne? Timber in midfield. Should we just have relied on Hughes and Lerma as back up? Also young talent to blood for the future like Osario and Gozo.
Maybe I’ve just got faith in the players we’ve bought?

I think you must have more faith in them than me, SD!

I really don't get why you feel we have two very good players in all positions. To me, we have two players for most positions, and a lot of them don't seem to be especially good. For example: We have three centre forwards, but only one I would rely on to do the job. As it happens, he wants to leave and will not be here next season.

We have, what, six, maybe seven players for two spots behind the forward? Again, only one that I would rely on to do a good job. Again, as it happens, he seemingly wants to leave.

To give another example: I can't see why having both Khalaili and Mingueza offsets the loss of Munoz if neither are as good as the player we had.

I take your point that cover is needed, but that is not the same as setting out to have two senior players for each position, which is what the club seems to have done. I would have kept Munoz and had Cardines as cover. In other words, a stronger first choice XI and a more defined hierarchy in which the young understudy will be far less upset to be in and out of the team as and when, for now at least.

I know that is putting most of our eggs in one basket, but we are Palace. We only have so many eggs!

 

[PatrickA]

I think you must have more faith in them than me, SD!

I really don't get why you feel we have two very good players in all positions. To me, we have two players for most positions, and a lot of them don't seem to be especially good. For example: We have three centre forwards, but only one I would rely on to do the job. As it happens, he wants to leave and will not be here next season.

We have, what, six, maybe seven players for two spots behind the forward? Again, only one that I would rely on to do a good job. Again, as it happens, he seemingly wants to leave.

To give another example: I can't see why having both Khalaili and Mingueza offsets the loss of Munoz if neither are as good as the player we had.

I take your point that cover is needed, but that is not the same as setting out to have two senior players for each position, which is what the club seems to have done. I would have kept Munoz and had Cardines as cover. In other words, a stronger first choice XI and a more defined hierarchy in which the young understudy will be far less upset to be in and out of the team as and when, for now at least.

I know that is putting most of our eggs in one basket, but we are Palace. We only have so many eggs!

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Compare the players from the FA Cup Final who have left and those who have replaced them nominally,
Guehi/ Tomiyasu
Lacroix/ Disasi
Munoz/ Khalaili
Eze/ Pino
Then consider those who want out
Mateta/ Larsen
Sarr/ Osorio

In each case there is a case that the former player is better.

Yes, I hear some say, it's too early to judge the replacements and we were powerless to stop some of the players leaving and we now have a stronger squad.
Well I prefer to wait to see how some of the squad additions perform before making that assessment.
And for every Lacroix replacing Anderson there is a Franca replacing Zaha, Ahamada replacing McArthur.

 

[Save Dwindlehurst]

I think you must have more faith in them than me, SD!

I really don't get why you feel we have two very good players in all positions. To me, we have two players for most positions, and a lot of them don't seem to be especially good. For example: We have three centre forwards, but only one I would rely on to do the job. As it happens, he wants to leave and will not be here next season.

We have, what, six, maybe seven players for two spots behind the forward? Again, only one that I would rely on to do a good job. Again, as it happens, he seemingly wants to leave.

To give another example: I can't see why having both Khalaili and Mingueza offsets the loss of Munoz if neither are as good as the player we had.

I take your point that cover is needed, but that is not the same as setting out to have two senior players for each position, which is what the club seems to have done. I would have kept Munoz and had Cardines as cover. In other words, a stronger first choice XI and a more defined hierarchy in which the young understudy will be far less upset to be in and out of the team as and when, for now at least.

I know that is putting most of our eggs in one basket, but we are Palace. We only have so many eggs!

Munoz not the same since the injury and we got a decent fee. Cardines is a great prospect but needs games at his age. Khalaili has started slowly but has got real talent and is the future and Mingueza used to play for Barcelona!

 

[RedandBlueSash]

Direction of travel looks positive to me.

A big win in Europe in the week. A very good point against a good Leeds team in their backyard. Two clean sheets with our first choice goalkeeper and captain injured, and a rejigged back three.

I'll take that all day long. COYP!

And our Mateta replacement is scoring and our Eze replacement is creating and scoring.

Still not looking as fluid as Sage's system is meant to make us but we are inching in the right direction. Some will never see it and choose to see a glass that is half-full ( and slowly filling ) as a glass that is 'half-empty.'

 

[doombear]

Midfield is a good example of where the signings seem to have helped. Timber seems a good enough player to have strengthened our team, whilst keeping Kamada and Wharton (not to mention Hughes and Lerma) has added a bit of depth. All good. Make one good signing and keep what you had.

But nobody can tell me that any combination of Larsen, Nketiah, Pino, Osorio, Kamada, or whoever is anything more than a downgrade on Mateta and Sarr. In other words, unless the latter two play, the team will be weaker. It doesn't matter how many options there are if they aren't very good. Same is true at centre back. We can pick three players there from about six but not be as strong as we were, or need to be.

I just don't see that greater squad depth offsets a weaker XI. If we can get both great. If not, the priority has to be a strong enough team.

Europe seems to be the justification for spreading the money around thinly to create a deeper squad. I actually said we wouldn't be in Europe for long compared to the length of players contracts. Even if we go fairly deep into the knockout phase, it'll be this season and done. We will then need to reduce the squad. Lets hope there will be buyers for all these spare parts we will have lying around, not playing much.

I'm not being negative for it's own sake, I just think that between the choice of coach, the churn in players, and the move from spending what we have on the XI to spreading it around a squad, the club has taken a lot of risks with a method that has always worked up to now.

Hopefully all will be well. It is very different, though.

I think you're overreacting and perhaps forgetting just how many players' contracts or loans end this coming Summer, namely:
1. Mitchell
2. Lerma
3. Hughes
4. Kamada
5. Mateta
6. Disasi
7. Ahanor
8. Osorio
9 Richards
10. Guessand (if he hasn't already returned to Villa)

That's hardly going to leave us with a bloated squad next season.

Furthermore, I don't know if either Chilwell or Tomiyasu have more than a 1 year contract, so there's two more we ought lose in the Summer.

It seems to me that the club has done the right thing to have ensured we have good depth this season. I would hope the club and the manager will be aiming to go as far as possible in the Europa League given the financial rewards of winning it if that can be achieved. Ar the same time we must protect our PL status. IMO we can't do both with the kind of pared down squad you are suggesting.

Osorio is on loan with a view to a possible purchase. He needs time before we can form any judgement so it is far too early to write him off.

Other new players also need time. Unlike Man City we can't afford to buy Prem proven players whenever we choose.

As for,Mingueza, I reckon he'll get a good number of the minutes. We're already guaranteed a minimum of 49 games this season and even a reasonable run in the 3 cups could see that hit the mid 50s.

 

[Palacesince64]

There is no doubt that we have greater depth in the squad compared with last season and that was clearly planned to cope with European football after we struggled last season once the manager decided to flog his preferred eleven to death. Whether we have a better first eleven remains to be seen. Riad and Canvot were brought in to replace Guehi. The former has been unlucky with injuries and the latter while promising has lacked consistency. However, he has undoubted talent and by the end of the season may prove to be a capable replacement for Mark. Lacroix was a replacement for Anderson and proved to be a surprisingly effective upgrade. We are undoubtedly weaker in that position given Tomiyasu’s fragile state and Ahanor’s lack of experience. They are temporary fill ins and I expect we may see a January signing at centre back. Khalaili for Munoz is a sensible decision as Munoz was not the same player after his injury and the money was too good to refuse. We have decent backup for both wing backs for the first time in years.

We replaced Eze with Pino and he is beginning to show his ability. We’ve also added McNeil on the left, and Osorio and Gozo on the right while retaining Sarr for the time being. We have 3 strikers none of whose is a guaranteed first choice but all are capable of doing a job. Overall we are stronger up front than last season.

In the centre we replaced an ageing Hughes as a starter with the impressive Timber while retaining Hughes as backup. Our best midfield pair last season was Wharton and Kamada. Now it looks like Wharton and Timber with Kamada an excellent backup for Timber or Sarr.

I think we have the best squad we’ve ever had and are better equipped to cope with the demands of this season. We are in transition and there’s a good chance that come the Spring we will be saying our replacements are as good as those who left and our team is better than last season and certainly more resilient. We will finish the season in the top half of the table. A trophy would be nice but unlikely this season but we might have a more settled squad with less need for panic buying in the summer.