Chelsea squad policy - should other clubs adopt it?

[listen_up_fergie]

Chelsea's squad policy - having two good players for each position - is definitely one of the reasons Chelsea are so strong this season. If one player is injured, they always have another player who can come in and play in the same position almost as effectively, thus maintaining the entire squad's consistency. It also allows Jose Mourinho to adapt a squad rotation strategy which keeps players fresh and allows him to play different tactical games depending on the opponent.
At the moment, Chelsea's squad looks like this:

Goalkeepers: Petr Cech, Carlo Cudicini
Rightback: Paulo Ferreira, Glen Johnson
Leftback: William Gallas, Wayne Bridge
Centreback: John Terry, Robert Huth
Centreback: Ricardo Carvalho, (William Gallas)
Central midfielder: Frank Lampard, Cardoso Tiago, Scott Parker
Central midfielder: Claude Makelele, Njitap Geremi, Jiri Jarosik
Attacking midfielder: Damien Duff, Joe Cole
Attacking midfielder: Arjen Robben, ?
Striker: Didier Drogba, Mateja Kezman
Striker: Eidur Gudjohnsen, Mikkael Forsell

As you can see, Chelsea have a lot of strength in depth, and they will probably buy a new leftback (some guy from Ajax) and a right winger (Joaquin) so that they ensure there are two quality players for every position on the pitch.
My question is, do Arsenal and Manchester United need to adapt a similar strategy? Manchester United won the treble after using a successful squad rotation strategy, but on the other hand, Arsenal managed to go unbeaten in the league with a fairly thin squad (could they have won a treble with more depth??). Of course having two players for each position is easy if you have Chelsea's millions. But rumour has it that Arsene Wenger will have a 40m pound transfer budget in the summer; on the other hand, Manchester United might claim to have used up their transfer budget on Rooney, but we all know that the board can eek out a few crores to strengthen the squad.

Currently, Manchester United's squad looks like this:
Goalkeepers: Tim Howard, Roy Carroll
Rightback: Gary Neville, Philip Neville
Leftback: Gabriel Heinze, John O'Shea
Centreback: Rio Ferdinand, (John O'Shea)
Centreback: Mikael Silvestre, Wes Brown
Central midfielder: Roy Keane, Darren Fletcher, Liam Miller
Central midfielder: Paul Scholes, Kleberson
Attacking midfielder: Ryan Giggs, Quinton Fortune
Attacking midfielder: Christiano Ronaldo
Striker: Ruud Van Nistelrooy, Alan Smith
Striker: Wayne Rooney, Louis Saha

In terms of strikers, United are pretty set provided they aren't faced with injuries. However, I feel they need to strengthen the squad in the following areas: (1) Goalkeeper (2) Central Midfielder (3) Attacking midfielder. Players United could target include, (1) Kameni, Lastuvka, Proto, Frey or Hildebrand for keeper (2) Essien, Gattuso, De Rossi or Mavuba for Central Midfield, or (3) Vicente, Sneijder, McGeady, or Rosicky for attacking midfielder. If they were to strengthen these three positions, they would definitely need at least a 25m pound transfer budget.


Arsenal's squad is currently (not counting Edu):
Goalkeepers: Jens Lehmann, Manuel Almunia
Rightback: Bisan Lauren, Emmanuel Eboue
Leftback: Ashley Cole, Gael Clichy
Centreback: Sol Campbell, Philippe Senderos
Centreback: Kolo Toure, Pascal Cygan
Central midfielder: Patrick Vieira, Mathieu Flamini
Central midfielder: Francesc Fabregas
Attacking midfielder: Freddie Ljungberg, Robert Pires
Attacking midfielder: Jose Antonio Reyes
Striker: Thierry Henry, Robin Van Persie
Striker: Dennis Bergkamp

As you can see, Arsenal are practically asking for it - they don't have enough cover for many positions, and given that Arsene has been given a hefty transfer budget, one can expect to find a new goalkeeper, central defender, central midfielder, attacking midfielder, and striker at Arsenal next season.

Of course, Arsenal and Manchester United also have a lot of budding youngsters who could make the step up to the regular first team football, but they will still be inexperienced, and the clubs need to find experienced players if they want to reap the benefits of having a large squad.

http://m160ra.blogspot.com

[Achtung]

This seriously couldn't have fit into one of the other three threads discussing the upcoming transfer window?

[sarabella]

I think it's a separate issue than the transfers. I actually found it quite an interesting thought, though I don't know how feasible it is for most teams to field two world class clubs. Big names have big egos and they don't like to sit the bench.

[listen_up_fergie]

This seriously couldn't have fit into one of the other three threads discussing the upcoming transfer window?

The point of my thread is not so much who we should buy...I just want to discuss whether having a large squad is necessary for an English team to win the Champions League.

[nicephoras]

This seriously couldn't have fit into one of the other three threads discussing the upcoming transfer window?

Or one of the three threads about Chelsea on this board already? ;)

As for the premise, its silly. We don't actually have that. For all that Mourinho says he wants 2 players for every position, we seem to have a glut of hard working less than stellar skilled midfielders at the moment to the exclusion of everything else. Thus the fiasco at Newcastle a few weeks ago.

[nicephoras]

The point of my thread is not so much who we should buy...I just want to discuss whether having a large squad is necessary for an English team to win the Champions League.

The depth of our squad has little to do with our CL form. You had every single player available for Milan, but lost. So what would depth have accomplished?
I know Ruud wasn't fully healthy and Saha and Fletcher were out. But the latter two aren't first choice and Milan were missing Sheva entirely while Kaladze was out for the second leg. Stam had just returned from injury, too. (You were missing Neville, however, right? Can't recall off the top of my head.) In short, depth had little to do with it.

[listen_up_fergie]

The depth of our squad has little to do with our CL form. You had every single player available for Milan, but lost. So what would depth have accomplished?
I know Ruud wasn't fully healthy and Saha and Fletcher were out. But the latter two aren't first choice and Milan were missing Sheva entirely while Kaladze was out for the second leg. Stam had just returned from injury, too. (You were missing Neville, however, right? Can't recall off the top of my head.) In short, depth had little to do with it.

I think it has a lot to do with your CL form. Few clubs would have the likes of Joe Cole to come on and replace Arjen Robben. And notice, I am talking about English clubs, who purportedly have a more gruelling fixture list than other clubs across Europe do.
Also, if you noticed, Ferreira started off the second half against Barcelona very shakily, and he looked unable to cope with Ronaldinho. Luckily, you had Glen Johnson on the bench who came on to relieve Ferreira, and he played well enough to suppress the attacks coming down Barca's left flank.
As a game wears on, the players you have on your bench become very important...they can often decide outcomes of games, and that is why depth is important. Of course you were lucky you didn't need your substitutes to come on and save the game for you...but back in '99, part of United's success was that they had players on their bench who could arguably walk into any other English club's teamsheet. Nowadays, our bench is not as formidable, whereas Chelsea's is.

[Achtung]

Or one of the three threads about Chelsea on this board already? ;)

True, we really don't need that many threads about our biggest title rivals. We don't need this place turning into the Arsenal forum. :p

[nicephoras]

I think it has a lot to do with your CL form. Few clubs would have the likes of Joe Cole to come on and replace Arjen Robben. And notice, I am talking about English clubs, who purportedly have a more gruelling fixture list than other clubs across Europe do.

They actually don't. Barcelona played 6 games in 17 days during our tie.
As for Joe Cole - ManUtd have Miller, Fletcher, etc., who're young central midfielders.

Also, if you noticed, Ferreira started off the second half against Barcelona very shakily, and he looked unable to cope with Ronaldinho. Luckily, you had Glen Johnson on the bench who came on to relieve Ferreira, and he played well enough to suppress the attacks coming down Barca's left flank.

:confused: What game did you watch? Glen was beaten by Eto'o once, and caused Carvalho to make a phenomenal tackle in the area or else he was through (Eto'o whined about it, but Ricardo clearly got ball first) and then hacked down Eto'o for what SHOULD have been a yellow. Besides, he's a 21 year old prospect. It'd be akin to ManUtd putting in Spector if Heinze wasn't pulling his weight. Hardly "2 players for every position". We bought him at 19.

As a game wears on, the players you have on your bench become very important...they can often decide outcomes of games, and that is why depth is important. Of course you were lucky you didn't need your substitutes to come on and save the game for you...but back in '99, part of United's success was that they had players on their bench who could arguably walk into any other English club's teamsheet. Nowadays, our bench is not as formidable, whereas Chelsea's is.

Our bench is deep, but when eveyone's fit, so's yours. Huth, Johnson and Tiago aren't superstars. They're serviceable squad players for the moment.

[listen_up_fergie]

It'd be akin to ManUtd putting in Spector if Heinze wasn't pulling his weight.

I don't think you can compare Johnson with Spector in terms of ability. Spector is only 18...Johnson on the other hand is already the best young rightback in England.

[nicephoras]

Johnson turned 21 just recently, I believe. He was playing in the CL last year. Its not a bad comparison at all. Until he was bought last year by Ranieri, he'd only played about 15 games for West Ham.

[johno]

Well, first let me say that you are incorrect by suggesting that Mourinho rotates his squad often... he only does it due to injury. I'd also like to say that comparing Miller, Fletcher etc to Joe Cole warrants a yellow... come on, somebody whip out a yellow... that's rediculous.. :D

[nicephoras]

Yes, Cole is clearly so much better.

[sanariot]

Well, first let me say that you are incorrect by suggesting that Mourinho rotates his squad often... he only does it due to injury.

First lie. stop... Where was it suggested that Mourinho rotates his squad often? Quote please...

I'd also like to say that comparing Miller, Fletcher etc to Joe Cole warrants a yellow... come on, somebody whip out a yellow... that's rediculous.. :D

You're on your home park...you're allowed to embellish a little.

[Achtung]

First lie. stop... Where was it suggested that Mourinho rotates his squad often? Quote please...

You asked for it.

It also allows Jose Mourinho to adapt a squad rotation strategy which keeps players fresh and allows him to play different tactical games depending on the opponent.

[johno]

First lie. stop... Where was it suggested that Mourinho rotates his squad often? Quote please...

hmm... not into reading threads so much as "feeling" them huh?


Oh... thanx for getting my back achtung... hey... I spelled it right!!!

[Acronym]

rentboys ffs, whats the facination with them? They aint our rivals, just a bunch of small time, middle class west london ********** with a neo nazi following and a bunch of rent-a-badge-kissers for players, that will probably win the league for the first time in 50 years!! Oh arr missus sounds about right that. You think Duff would warm the bench or Robben if they brought in Joaquin? Nah - can't really see Parker staying either, that was a bad move for him, same with Cole.

[billyho96]

You can keep players happy not starting if they are own 50+ a week. Who else can afford to do that?

[Acronym]

Yea if they like collecting cheques, some people actually want to play though and win medals. We can afford that: P is on 50 k a week.