Do we know how long Humphreys is out for?

[Jakubs Tash]

Let’s not forget that there is an international break in March which takes up two weeks and this, along with hopefully a prognosis that’s more on the positive side, means he shouldn’t be missing for too long. At least that’s what I’m hoping…..

[RVclaret]

Parker has said he’s out for ‘some time’. Looks like NewClaret’s 6-8 week projection could turn out to be accurate. A real blow this.

[Vegas Claret]

bad news

[Goliath]

bad news

We should have signed Charlie Taylor on loan. Absolute no brainer which as usual I got slated for when I suggested it in Jan. Let's hope Pires is 1 good enough and 2 able to play conisistenly twice a week without getting injuries.

[DCWat]

Not good news at all. Hopefully ‘some time’ doesn’t mean back end of the season, or worse, next season.

Pires has done OK and has his strengths, but being without Humphries for a longer spell is a blow.

[Roosterbooster]

Do we have another recognised LB in the squad other than Pires?

Roberts and Sonne can probably cover, but we do seem light in that area

[Row x]

We should have signed Charlie Taylor on loan. Absolute no brainer which as usual I got slated for when I suggested it in Jan. Let's hope Pires is 1 good enough and 2 able to play conisistenly twice a week without getting injuries.

What would we have signed him as, third choice?
Was it not you who said Pires was the best left back?

[burnley007]

We could switch to a back 3? Worrall in for Laurent?

[ArmchairDetective]

Bad news. He's been brilliant.

I'd be reluctant to break up that back three CB and keeper combination but Esteve could cover LB and Worrall at CB should it come to it. Believe it or not Steve says he started out as a winger. Hopefully Pires stays fit for the remainder however.

[randomclaret2]

Very light in terms of cover in defensive areas now at a critical stage of the season

[Quickenthetempo]

We have only lost one game with Pires in the team and that was Sunderland away.
We will be reight.

[Goliath]

What would we have signed him as, third choice?
Was it not you who said Pires was the best left back?

I said he deserves a chance because he's shown promise and offers more on the ball than Humphreys. I also said we should sign Taylor when we lost most of our centre backs.
He and Humphries both cover 2 positions, any injury to Esteve and wed have needed Humphreys at LCB.
Also Pires was/is still unproven so any Humphries injury was always going to be an issue.

We now have to just hope Pires is up to it consistently and hope we don't get an injury to one of the centre backs leaving us without cover. I really don't understand why we've decided to put ourselves into such a position. Very uneccessary

[alwaysaclaret]

Seems a poor decision to let the likes of Delcroix and dodgson go out on loan.

[Row x]

Seems a poor decision to let the likes of Delcroix and dodgson go out on loan.

Hindsight is wonderful, but how many left backs do we need normally? We can't keep 4 just in case 3 get injured.
Roberts has played there previously if required

[claretspice]

This is a blow because it deprives us of a good player.

No massive worries about Pires, beyond the fact he's in his first season in English football with all its additional intensity and that can bring injuries/fatigue as the season wears on. Clearly, we're now a little short of cover and that does seem a bit of a mistake with hindsight. It wouldn't be a massive surprise if Pires doesn't play on Saturday as a result, in which case we'll get a clue as to how we'd adapt if Pires were to get injured.

[ClaretTony]

Seems a poor decision to let the likes of Delcroix and dodgson go out on loan.

Dodgson went out to get regular game time, something he was denied in the first half of the season because of an injury. Delcroix is very much surplus to requirements. Can't see, because of one injury, why they have suddenly become poor decisions.

[claretspice]

Dodgson went out to get regular game time, something he was denied in the first half of the season because of an injury. Delcroix is very much surplus to requirements. Can't see, because of one injury, why they have suddenly become poor decisions.

I don't think it's a poor decision per se, but clearly a former Belgian international defender with experience at full back would be useful cover right now. Hindsight and all that.

[Stonehouse]

We could switch to a back 3? Worrall in for Laurent?

Do you think it’s worth disrupting the best back 5 in England because of one injury? If SP did that and we lost he’d get absolutely slaughtered.

[Roosterbooster]

Dodgson went out to get regular game time, something he was denied in the first half of the season because of an injury. Delcroix is very much surplus to requirements. Can't see, because of one injury, why they have suddenly become poor decisions.

They haven't suddenly become poor decisions. Just the injury to Humphreys has highlighted it, I would say. No issue with letting Dosgson get game time. But Delcroix showed in a few games last season that he's a decent enough defender, and would be more than capable as a backup in this league. We now have no recognised backup LB, and so are one injury away from playing square pegs in round holes. Given our squad size that's a silly position to leave ourselves in. Especially at this stage of the season when you know injuries can mount up

[wilks_bfc]

Why are people worried about playing Pires and having no further cover?

Change the scenario to Robert’s for Humphreys & Sonne for Pires

If it was Roberts that was injured would people be saying the same about Sonne?
CJ has played RB. Would people be suggesting he goes there and Worrell partners Esteve in the centre?”
Whatever combination we have played across the back line, we have conceded 9 goals and as people have pointed out prior, whether it’s been either Humphreys or Pires with Robert’s, CJ and Esteve, we’ve conceded 2 goals with each of them

[Conroy92]

They haven't suddenly become poor decisions. Just the injury to Humphreys has highlighted it, I would say. No issue with letting Dosgson get game time. But Delcroix showed in a few games last season that he's a decent enough defender, and would be more than capable as a backup in this league. We now have no recognised backup LB, and so are one injury away from playing square pegs in round holes. Given our squad size that's a silly position to leave ourselves in. Especially at this stage of the season when you know injuries can mount up

Should we sign five players covering every position just in case?

We are two goalkeeping injuries away from having no goal keeper you know. Best panic.

You are mad.

[Vegas Claret]

we've got Edwards and Benny now, we pose a far bigger threat. Hopefully we wont be defending that much !

[Roosterbooster]

Should we sign five players covering every position just in case?

We are two goalkeeping injuries away from having no goal keeper you know. Best panic.

You are mad.

Did you actually think this through before replying, or was this just a reflex?

Yes, we are two goalkeeper injuries away from having no goalkeeper—but goalkeepers don’t pick up injuries anywhere near as often as outfield players, nor do they need rotation. Outfield players do. That’s the key difference you’ve somehow overlooked.

Right now, a single injury at left-back has left us with zero natural cover. We have no other left-footed full-backs, so we’re either shifting a right-footed player there or relying on Pires. Compare that to right-back, where we had several players who could step in if needed.

At centre-back, we had slightly better cover, but now that Humphreys is injured, we’re looking stretched there too. If Delcroix had stayed, he would have provided depth in both positions—solving two problems at once.

So no, nobody’s saying we need five players for every position. But having just two left-backs, when we already have three goalkeepers, makes no sense at all.

[Goliath]

People are missing the point that it wasn't just left back we left ourselves a bit short. We also have 4 centre backs of which one is also our most regular left back. It would have made total sense to bring in a left back, ideally one that could cover at left centre back as well. I.e. Charlie Taylor, it was the most obvious signing possible on loan.

[Row x]

People are missing the point that it wasn't just left back we left ourselves a bit short. We also have 4 centre backs of which one is also our most regular left back. It would have made total sense to bring in a left back, ideally one that could cover at left centre back as well. I.e. Charlie Taylor, it was the most obvious signing possible on loan.

Charlie Taylor was not the answer, a name that would never have been mentioned had he not played for Burnley.
Had the management decided we needed a left back, there were plenty better options out there

[Big Vinny K]

Isn’t Delcroix the same player who did not return for pre season on time and then has spent most of the season out injured ?
Strangely enough he’s had a Lazarus type recovery and been fit to play for Swansea for the last 5 or 6 games since he signed for them.

Doesn’t seem to be getting the same treatment on this board as Tresor.

[Stonehouse]

Did you actually think this through before replying, or was this just a reflex?

Yes, we are two goalkeeper injuries away from having no goalkeeper—but goalkeepers don’t pick up injuries anywhere near as often as outfield players, nor do they need rotation. Outfield players do. That’s the key difference you’ve somehow overlooked.

Right now, a single injury at left-back has left us with zero natural cover. We have no other left-footed full-backs, so we’re either shifting a right-footed player there or relying on Pires. Compare that to right-back, where we had several players who could step in if needed.

At centre-back, we had slightly better cover, but now that Humphreys is injured, we’re looking stretched there too. If Delcroix had stayed, he would have provided depth in both positions—solving two problems at once.

So no, nobody’s saying we need five players for every position. But having just two left-backs, when we already have three goalkeepers, makes no sense at all.

I think you can get emergency loans for keepers .

[alwaysaclaret]

Dodgson went out to get regular game time, something he was denied in the first half of the season because of an injury. Delcroix is very much surplus to requirements. Can't see, because of one injury, why they have suddenly become poor decisions.

Totally get both your points re Delcroix and Dodgson, however situation is a bit more critical on the left side imo, simply because if the same was to happen ie on the right side we have Egan-Riley and Roberts 1st choice, but proper back up in both positions with Sonne and Worrall. However on the left side, we only realistically have Esteve and Humphreys 1st choice, with Pires as back up, Humphreys was essentially covering 2 positions, so now consequently should esteve get injured we're totally screwed. OK we have Worrall of course but he's a right sided CB imo, and of course Roberts could cover left back as he has done before, but in the grand scheme of things humphreys injury leaves us a bit short, so was just a little bit silly to say the least to let both of Delcroix and Dodgson go, OK 1 of them, but both no. And Egan as well. It could cost us, finger's crossed Pires performs admirably and stays fit.

[Stonehouse]

People are missing the point that it wasn't just left back we left ourselves a bit short. We also have 4 centre backs of which one is also our most regular left back. It would have made total sense to bring in a left back, ideally one that could cover at left centre back as well. I.e. Charlie Taylor, it was the most obvious signing possible on loan.

I think fans should realise that when wanting an ex player to return they need to consider that the squad is entirely different as well as the manager and the coaching staff ,and I’m sure SP will have his own ideas on who to bring in ,and in the cold light of day there’s no way that it was his idea to bring Barnes back.

[boatshed bill]

Did you actually think this through before replying, or was this just a reflex?



So no, nobody’s saying we need five players for every position. But having just two left-backs, when we already have three goalkeepers, makes no sense at all.

I think all championship clubs have 3 goalkeepers, but I doubt many have 3 left-backs.

[boatshed bill]

Dodgson went out to get regular game time, something he was denied in the first half of the season because of an injury. Delcroix is very much surplus to requirements. Can't see, because of one injury, why they have suddenly become poor decisions.

Agreed. And perhaps both players were pushing for loans out.

[alwaysaclaret]

Agreed. And perhaps both players were pushing for loans out.

Totally get that they could well have been, and nobody would blame them, but having let them both go, and humphreys getting injured has just left us a bit short.

[boatshed bill]

Totally get that they could well have been, and nobody would blame them, but having let them both go, and humphreys getting injured has just left us a bit short.

Can you imagine the reaction on here if we suddenly depended on Owen Dodgson?

[dougcollins]

Roberts at LB has never worked out too well before.

We've definitely left ourselves short.

I'm one of those not filled with confidence by Pires.

[Hedontplayforyou]

He’s out on loan so I wouldn’t worry about that

[Hedontplayforyou]

Has Sambo been filed under Tresor? I know he’s a right fullback but still

[boatshed bill]

Has Pires cost us a goal yet?

[dougcollins]

Has Pires cost us a goal yet?

Maybe existentially.

Those kind of questions are not easily answered.

[Goliath]

I think fans should realise that when wanting an ex player to return they need to consider that the squad is entirely different as well as the manager and the coaching staff ,and I’m sure SP will have his own ideas on who to bring in ,and in the cold light of day there’s no way that it was his idea to bring Barnes back.

Jesus, I explained the reasoning pretty clearly. It's nothing to with wanting an ex player to return. He just would have provided excellent cover for 2 positions and would now be fighting with Pires for the left back slot.

He was excellent for Kompany in that role, played a really important role as cover for us at left back and centre back in the promotion season.

[ksrclaret]

That's a real blow. Humphreys has been maturing really quickly into a really good left back, despite it not being, by his own admission, his favoured position. Defensively he's been mostly immaculate and he's clearly been working on his contribution to the attacking side, registering a goal and two assists. He'll be a massive miss.

I've never been overly impressed with Pires, but neither have I ever come away from a game thinking he's had a real stinker. I actually thought he did really well in the left-wing back role at Southampton, which seemed to suit him a but more in both directions. I'd be interested to see him there again at Preston on Saturday.

[Conroy92]

Did you actually think this through before replying, or was this just a reflex?

Yes, we are two goalkeeper injuries away from having no goalkeeper—but goalkeepers don’t pick up injuries anywhere near as often as outfield players, nor do they need rotation. Outfield players do. That’s the key difference you’ve somehow overlooked.

Right now, a single injury at left-back has left us with zero natural cover. We have no other left-footed full-backs, so we’re either shifting a right-footed player there or relying on Pires. Compare that to right-back, where we had several players who could step in if needed.

At centre-back, we had slightly better cover, but now that Humphreys is injured, we’re looking stretched there too. If Delcroix had stayed, he would have provided depth in both positions—solving two problems at once.

So no, nobody’s saying we need five players for every position. But having just two left-backs, when we already have three goalkeepers, makes no sense at all.

25 man squad.

11 first team positions.
A back up in every position.

22 men.

A third choice goalkeeper.

23 men.

Gives you a couple of extras to play with and under 21's. (I presume Dodgson would have had to be registered being 22 now) looking at the current squad there's only Koleosho and Humphreys that would fit the under 21 and actually be in with contention for a starting spot.

So 27 squad spots realistically. And then the youth team. Of which can't be considered other wise you would just be suggesting the current left back of the youth side fill in.

So the maths says in order for us to have 3 players covering in every position (using our current squad) . We would need to have either an additional 6 squad spots. Or we needed to sign an additional 6 under 21 players who are of championship quality.

Of course clubs try and play a little smarter and have players who cover in multiple positions. As other posters have pointed out above. There are shuffles that can be made within our own squad to accommodate that. Just because none are naturally left footed in this day and age is largely irrelevant. If you were willing to consider Dodgson as reasonable cover I think it likely Roberts would be an upgrade from that.

That's why I think your mad. Because having 3 left backs is mad. And the fact you would consider Dodgson an option there and not full backs who have played regularly in this division is also mad.

[Row x]

Jesus, I explained the reasoning pretty clearly. It's nothing to with wanting an ex player to return. He just would have provided excellent cover for 2 positions and would now be fighting with Pires for the left back slot.

He was excellent for Kompany in that role, played a really important role as cover for us at left back and centre back in the promotion season.

Was there even a place for an extra loan player in January?

[Stonehouse]

Jesus, I explained the reasoning pretty clearly. It's nothing to with wanting an ex player to return. He just would have provided excellent cover for 2 positions and would now be fighting with Pires for the left back slot.

He was excellent for Kompany in that role, played a really important role as cover for us at left back and centre back in the promotion season.

We might as well have made a silly offer for Ben Mee I’m sure he’d love to come back to the Turf .

[alwaysaclaret]

Can you imagine the reaction on here if we suddenly depended on Owen Dodgson?

That's absolutely not the point, neither is the fact of whether or not Pires has cost us a point.

[boatshed bill]

That's absolutely not the point, neither is the fact of whether or not Pires has cost us a point.

Is there a point?

[alwaysaclaret]

Is there a point?

Why we having this conversation.

[boatshed bill]

Why we having this conversation.

You are asserting that two of my posts are not the point so I imagine you have the answer.

[Goliath]

We might as well have made a silly offer for Ben Mee I’m sure he’d love to come back to the Turf .

I've had better conversations with brick walls

[Goliath]

Was there even a place for an extra loan player in January?

Hadn't thought of that. I presumed so but happy to be corrected.

[alwaysaclaret]

You are asserting that two of my posts are not the point so I imagine you have the answer.

Maybe you should refer to the thread title, and follow it, and perhaps take particular note to my posts, If it's no clearer then I give up.