01-10-2020, 12:39 PM
(01-10-2020, 12:33 PM)SW4Baggie Wrote:(01-10-2020, 11:39 AM)Remi_Moses Wrote:(01-10-2020, 11:16 AM)Sliced Wrote:(01-10-2020, 10:26 AM)Malcolm Tucker Wrote:(01-10-2020, 10:13 AM)Sliced Wrote: Stoke have 31 first team squad members
Those two examples are hardly proof that having a big squad is crap and relying on very few players is a key to success.
What about the play-offs last season, when were bringing kids off the bench and the Villa were bringing £30m worth of players on?
I didn't say that! It's counter intuitive to say less players is better! It's just not the be all and end all outside of the extremes (last year our squad was too small, but also if we'd put Montero on instead of an unfit Leko we may not have been quite as fucked)
When I was a lad you had 11 players and 1 sub.
And they would run about 5-6km a game less, sprint at a much slower pace and the top players could still perform the morning after sinking 8 pints.
Hey I saw Wee Willie sink a pint during the game and Osborne always had a fag when the ball was up the other end of the pitch.