Dem Bones, Dem Bones, Dem Bare Bones....

[Worthy4England]

Can’t even remember why Sheehan was injured now to be honest. Not sure how he fits into our best XI…

I think the Twitter narrative was "he's got a sore pussy".

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Can’t even remember why Sheehan was injured now to be honest. Not sure how he fits into our best XI…

5 Dec: "“Josh Sheehan had a slight hamstring niggle going into the game on Tuesday [home v Mansfield] but felt he could get through the game,” said Ian Evatt. “There was clearly some hindrance so he has been scanned. It hasn’t got worse and we are hopefully that it is nothing muscular, it might be referred pain from his back or something else. We will see what the scan says and then make a call on what he does this weekend [at Bristol Rovers. a game everntually postponed].”

So that's a month ago, then.

[KeyserSoze]

Large Daniel out for 8-10 weeks for Cambridge. Hammy. Shocked

https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/ ... s-9399351/

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Large Daniel out for 8-10 weeks for Cambridge. Hammy. Shocked

https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/ ... s-9399351/

That’s a blow to our hopes of selling him…

[officer_dibble]

Can’t even remember why Sheehan was injured now to be honest. Not sure how he fits into our best XI…

I think the Twitter narrative was "he's got a sore pussy".

He’s deffo in the fanny club. Albeit he’s quite tough for a short arse.

[GhostoftheBok]

That’s a blow to our hopes of selling him…

We saved over a Dan on the Randall deal, so I suppose it just evens out.

[Worthy4England]

That’s a blow to our hopes of selling him…

We saved over a Dan on the Randall deal, so I suppose it just evens out.

I have a simple equation to judge whether something is an expenditure or a saving. I apply it to the missus when she buys new stuff that's 50% cheaper than last month. Did money come into the account or depart it. If the former, it's a saving. If the latter it's an expenditure and by definintion is absolutely NOT a saving.

[GhostoftheBok]

I have a simple equation to judge whether something is an expenditure or a saving. I apply it to the missus when she buys new stuff that's 50% cheaper than last month. Did money come into the account or depart it. If the former, it's a saving. If the latter it's an expenditure and by definintion is absolutely NOT a saving.

Sure, but if money is already set aside for a purchase and it costs you significantly less than you thought you saved money.

It's an accounting expenditure. It's a projection saving.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

If the money is being spent on Dan then the word save/ing shouldn't be in use. Its a frivolous expense if you want to be kind about it.

[Worthy4England]

I have a simple equation to judge whether something is an expenditure or a saving. I apply it to the missus when she buys new stuff that's 50% cheaper than last month. Did money come into the account or depart it. If the former, it's a saving. If the latter it's an expenditure and by definintion is absolutely NOT a saving.

Sure, but if money is already set aside for a purchase and it costs you significantly less than you thought you saved money.

It's an accounting expenditure. It's a projection saving.

Against a notional number that didn't result in a successful purchase 6 months earlier when it was set? Notional fairy dust like most business cases you see.

[Worthy4England]

If the money is being spent on Dan then the word save/ing shouldn't be in use. Its a frivolous expense if you want to be kind about it.

Yup, there will likely become a time when we can judge the "value" of that investment.

[GhostoftheBok]

Against a notional number that didn't result in a successful purchase 6 months earlier when it was set? Notional fairy dust like most business cases you see.

Against Evatt's budget, which he will try to meet by estimating costs ahead of time - as with all budgets.

If he's down a bit from one deal then he can make it up on another and stay within budget.

[Worthy4England]

Against a notional number that didn't result in a successful purchase 6 months earlier when it was set? Notional fairy dust like most business cases you see.

Against Evatt's budget, which he will try to meet by estimating costs ahead of time - as with all budgets.

If he's down a bit from one deal then he can make it up on another and stay within budget.

Yeah, I'm good with that. He has a budget, he manages to it. It was just the "saved money" notion.

[GhostoftheBok]

Yeah, I'm good with that. He has a budget, he manages to it. It was just the "saved money" notion.

No issue changing terminology.

Regardless, the money spent on Dan hasn't helped us.

Very little point having a talented player if they can't stay fit long enough to coach them.

Same goes for a few other lads on the books.

[Worthy4England]

Yeah, I'm good with that. He has a budget, he manages to it. It was just the "saved money" notion.

No issue changing terminology.

Regardless, the money spent on Dan hasn't helped us.

Very little point having a talented player if they can't stay fit long enough to coach them.

Same goes for a few other lads on the books.

Yeah - at a macro level - I think you'd probably say we were seeing progress until Jan last year. After that it's been a lot more patchy and we've signed some players that clearly have some talent, I'm just less sure around the why's and wherefore's as to what the thinking was to fit 'em all together.

[GhostoftheBok]

I'm just less sure around the why's and wherefore's as to what the thinking was to fit 'em all together.

I think that's valid.

We switched from 3-4-3 to 3-5-2 after the disastrous start and that's a problem for them to sort out.

I think the squad looks like it's going to play somewhere between the two. 3-4-1-2, if you will.

We'll see

[Worthy4England]

I'm just less sure around the why's and wherefore's as to what the thinking was to fit 'em all together.

I think that's valid.

We switched from 3-4-3 to 3-5-2 after the disastrous start and that's a problem for them to sort out.

I think the squad looks like it's going to play somewhere between the two. 3-4-1-2, if you will.

We'll see

I'm less sure about formations than some, but it looked to me like we had roughly a 3-5-2 until Jan 2024, bought some folks to enable a 3-4-3 - we didn't for the most part try it at end of 2024 season as it was possibly working against the notion that 3-5-2 was at the time on target to get us there.

We got a bit confused trying to fit Collins in and ultimately missed out. So this season after a period of reflection, we went out and bought more players who might make 3-4-3 work, only to find out it didn't (in our case, at that time, with this manager - caveat, caveat, etc.) and reverted back to a 3-5-2, which also now seems to be a bit broke from what it was, as it's a different 2 than the 2 from when we were being successful at it and top of the League, 12 months ago?

You can understand a bloke who just wants to see some no-nonsense football, with tackling and heading, being a bit confused at this point.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'm less sure about formations than some, but it looked to me like we had roughly a 3-5-2 until Jan 2024, bought some folks to enable a 3-4-3 - we didn't for the most part try it at end of 2024 season as it was possibly working against the notion that 3-5-2 was at the time on target to get us there.

We got a bit confused trying to fit Collins in and ultimately missed out. So this season after a period of reflection, we went out and bought more players who might make 3-4-3 work, only to find out it didn't (in our case, at that time, with this manager - caveat, caveat, etc.) and reverted back to a 3-5-2, which also now seems to be a bit broke from what it was, as it's a different 2 than the 2 from when we were being successful at it and top of the League, 12 months ago?

You can understand a bloke who just wants to see some no-nonsense football, with tackling and heading, being a bit confused at this point.

All formations are fairly mutable anyway - this ain't table football, folk move round, and formations rarely survive first contact with the enemy. But the theory changes. Here's how I've seen it.

In Jan 2022 we switched from a back four to a back three, in a 3412 (ie two sitting midfielders and a 10). That immediately improved our results hugely, but it didn't give Dapo a natural home - he's not truly comfortable at 10 or 9 - so we sold him two windows later, in Jan 2023.

In March 2023, after three games against Portsmouth, Morecambe and Ipswich delivered one goal and two points, Evatt gave up on playing Shoretire at 10 and flipped his midfield triangle to sit Sheehan - who hadn't been a regular since returning - as his fulcrum no.6 behind two "free 8s".

Then in January 2024, with Dion and Vic going well, we signed Collins. Dion did his knee in mid-Feb and Vic his hammy in mid-March anyway, but perhaps as you say Evatt was imagining a way to try to fit them all in. Then, a combination of Sir Gareth's summer experiment with a 3-4-2-1 - in his case trying to shoehorn in all his No 10s as opposed to his forwards - plus the general clamour for a Plan B after Oxford's simple spoke-in-the-wheels at Wembley led us to experiment early this season. We quickly switched back.

[GhostoftheBok]

We have a lot of options in midfield now. We can play different shapes and ask different questions.

Whether we can stop teams running right through us remains to be seen.

Randall should help with the "if they never have the ball they can't score a goal" side of things and reduce the number of side/back passes we play.

I'd like a reliable defender in through the door, though. Too many lads are injured and Johnston isn't doing it.

Solidify those roles either side of Rico and we've half a chance.

[Worthy4England]

The problem I have with the "never have the ball" philosophy, is it is always incorrect. 100% of the time. And they only need it once to beat you 1-0. It's a fallacy.