Look at some of the individual valuations in there, though! Just trying to save you from the inevitable “block of laughy faces” from Tuffers…
[/quote]
It's an imperfect methodology, but the idea that we do not have quality in this team/squad is for the birds. The idea that it's only good enough for another relegation scrap is just insane.
Since when has amount spent been linked to a team's quality? Been one or two (or more) teams who've spent big time and still had poor squads.
Are you joking?
Financial resources/squad value are consistently among the strongest determinants of league position in professional football.
Look at Birmingham - they had the most valuable squad in L1 by some distance, and walked the league. Wrexham same.
There are always exceptions to the rule, and teams who massively underperform/overperform vs budget, but there are few clearer correlations in football.
essexfootball wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2026 5:00 pm
Last season everyone blamed the squad, this season we have a good squad and depth
There's no gaping holes in the squad like last season but they still seem just as unfit compared to other sides
Why only blame fitness? Some of the players attitudes don't appear right and some are just lacking in ability and/or experience. Then add in the fact that some of our "better" players aren't performing currently (which may be due to recovery from injuries...) and there is a whole plethora of possible reasons. Finally, add in the common denominator - Richie. It's a combination of all of these reasons but the buck must stop with Richie.
Because the first thing you have to do in football is run as hard (or harder) than the opposition for the entirety of the game. Last season we had a squad that couldn't stay fit, beset with constant niggling injuries.
Club recruited differently this summer, looking for more robust players yet we still have players that have been here since the start of summer still looking off the pace. Along with how long it takes to get players back after injury I think it's an area the club needs to take a closer look at and make some changes.
I don't believe this squad is inherently lazy or lacking in effort, they just don't seem to be in great shape physically.
Mistadobalina wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2026 5:29 pm
There are definitely issues in our squad - Hayden is a dud and neither strikers have shown much, albeit they are being let down by how stodgy our attack is - but is it bad enough to be consistently outplayed by teams like Burton, Barnsley (who are second from bottom and played us off the pitch), Wycombe etc?
I love Richie and appreciate everything he's done for the club, but we have looked dreadful for 15 months now. A few ground out home wins have papered over some serious cracks.
Nicely put. Even a journeyman manager would get this squad to comfortable mid-table. League One this season is not great. We carry on like this, it’s another relegation battle
Since when has amount spent been linked to a team's quality? Been one or two (or more) teams who've spent big time and still had poor squads.
Are you joking?
Financial resources/squad value are consistently among the strongest determinants of league position in professional football.
Look at Birmingham - they had the most valuable squad in L1 by some distance, and walked the league. Wrexham same.
There are always exceptions to the rule, and teams who massively underperform/overperform vs budget, but there are few clearer correlations in football.
In your humble opinion.
No. This is one of the most well-established findings in football economics. It is an evidence-based observation, not simply a subjective opinion.
Like many others I'm pretty hacked off by what happened today.
The club has heavily backed Richie & we have a squad that should be challenging for the play offs.
He doesn't seem to know what his best team is & starts Charlie again who is not good enough to start.
Most damning of all, we have already lost 6 out of 12 games which is just unacceptable.
My view is that if we lose to Cambridge on Sat then it has to be goodbye Richie. For a number of reasons I think his position should be at real risk.
As someone else said, it's been generally wholly underwhelming for the last 15 months & at times very poor.
essexfootball wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2026 5:00 pm
Last season everyone blamed the squad, this season we have a good squad and depth
And that is why I'm beginning to get my first ever doubts about Richie . I love the bloke but with the players we have we should be showing signs of improvement by now . Not only are we losing but we're not playing very well either . I still believe we'll improve but I must admit the clock is now ticking on Richie .
PKM wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2026 4:26 pm
CW offers absolutely nothing
Ditto Hayden imho.
Look at the impact Webster and Vickers had today, light years difference to Hayden.
Indeed. Not all Hayden’s fault for today of course, his midfield partner did little to hep him but he looks a like a player who has little to offer and after one final payday to me.
Financial resources/squad value are consistently among the strongest determinants of league position in professional football.
Look at Birmingham - they had the most valuable squad in L1 by some distance, and walked the league. Wrexham same.
There are always exceptions to the rule, and teams who massively underperform/overperform vs budget, but there are few clearer correlations in football.
In your humble opinion.
No. This is one of the most well-established findings in football economics. It is an evidence-based observation, not simply a subjective opinion.
There are', of course, big-spending clubs who end up with high performing teams. There is, of course, a plausible link between big-spending and high performance but it's not a guarantee. Budgets, big or small, can be spent wisely, unwisely, or somewhere in between. However, to state that we're a top 5, top 10 team based purely on our spend over the Summer is laughable. Especially as we've now had a chance to watch some of these "high ticket" players in action and found them wanting. Secondly, Gilbert is being held up as a top player and we got him on a free (I think).
In summary, no single factor determines where a team will finish in the table. Expenditure included.
PT78 wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2026 4:53 pm
Idris Cost us a point.
Been awful this season so far, Wellens dropped him to get a reaction. Maybe drop him for a month because hes been sh*t
WJ1 cost us three points. Let’s drop him first.
El Mizouni cost us three points, let's drop him. Is in first class on the same train as me, anyone want to pass on any comments...
PT78 wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2026 4:53 pm
Idris Cost us a point.
Been awful this season so far, Wellens dropped him to get a reaction. Maybe drop him for a month because hes been sh*t
WJ1 cost us three points. Let’s drop him first.
El Mizouni cost us three points, let's drop him. Is in first class on the same train as me, anyone want to pass on any comments...
o-no wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2026 5:14 pm
We've had Ballard and Kelman to paper over the cracks the last few seasons. There is absolutely no way Scarlett or Kabia will get anywhere near their returns. I do fear for this season, apart from up front we should be doing much better, every other team looks way more organised and direct than us. Kabia is our record-signing FFS.
Is it correct that WJ1 needs a certain number of appearances to get another year, or did I imagine that?
I have heard this as well.
He signed a two year deal but to get a third year he has to make X amount of appearances.
But surely Ritchie wouldn't risk his own job by playing Charlie knowing he has better & stronger options on the bench.....or would he???
He gave him a contract in the first place when no one else would….
Of course he would. You’d do anything for your children.
No. This is one of the most well-established findings in football economics. It is an evidence-based observation, not simply a subjective opinion.
There are', of course, big-spending clubs who end up with high performing teams. There is, of course, a plausible link between big-spending and high performance but it's not a guarantee. Budgets, big or small, can be spent wisely, unwisely, or somewhere in between. However, to state that we're a top 5, top 10 team based purely on our spend over the Summer is laughable. Especially as we've now had a chance to watch some of these "high ticket" players in action and found them wanting. Secondly, Gilbert is being held up as a top player and we got him on a free (I think).
In summary, no single factor determines where a team will finish in the table. Expenditure included.
Sigh. I never said it was the only factor, but it is clearly/objectively one of the most influential factors, if not the most influential factor - proven year-in, year-out in every league in the world.
If you don't think this squad has enough potential/talent to be a top 10 - even top 5 - team in League One, I don't know what to tell you. At present, they're being let down by poor tactics, training and team selection.
As for Gilbert, he's valued at £1m on Transfermarkt, so the fact we got him for a free is irrelevant. Otherwise, it'd be like suggesting Messi wasn't worth anything because he joined PSG on a free.
o-no wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2026 5:14 pm
We've had Ballard and Kelman to paper over the cracks the last few seasons. There is absolutely no way Scarlett or Kabia will get anywhere near their returns. I do fear for this season, apart from up front we should be doing much better, every other team looks way more organised and direct than us. Kabia is our record-signing FFS.
Is it correct that WJ1 needs a certain number of appearances to get another year, or did I imagine that?
I have heard this as well.
He signed a two year deal but to get a third year he has to make X amount of appearances.
But surely Ritchie wouldn't risk his own job by playing Charlie knowing he has better & stronger options on the bench.....or would he???
He gave him a contract in the first place when no one else would….
Of course he would. You’d do anything for your children.
I have heard this as well.
He signed a two year deal but to get a third year he has to make X amount of appearances.
But surely Ritchie wouldn't risk his own job by playing Charlie knowing he has better & stronger options on the bench.....or would he???
He gave him a contract in the first place when no one else would….
Of course he would. You’d do anything for your children.
Get your facts right Ling gave him a contract.
And I'm sure that was entirely on merit. And Richie had no say in it whatsoever.
