I saw no evidence that they "sat behind the ball".
I'm only going off comments of what others who sent said - did we not sit deep ?
Hurst said:
"That certainly wasn't the gameplan. If anyone's been to the game thinking we asked them to sit behind the ball and soak up pressure then far from it so... [talks about us being a million miles away]"
I'm confused at your comment - if we didn't sit back then what is Hurst on about ?
County used the wings and pushed into the space left by our midfielders playing too centrally. This is my big issue with 4-3-3. Time and again Wood (particularly) and Green were left rather exposed.
Not sure how the back 4 come into the equation but I'm confused again - did we play 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 ?
There are pros and cons to any formation and it's difficult to comment because I wasn't there but surely the wider long-term issue is about when to play certain squad players ?
Even if you stick with 4-4-2 there's half a case for e.g.Southwell to get a run out right midfield ?
As I've said it's never an easy decision but a good manager doesn't always stick with the same team until they lose - if he can bring others into the mix and create healthy competition for places whilst still getting results then it helps all round.
Surely only a suicidal manager would tell his team to go out and attack for 90 minutes away from home. I assume your post is the latest in a few where you made the suggestion that we should have changed things around. Apologies for not having the time to go back over the last few days but given our injury situation our options were limited.
With all due respect I think you're getting yourself into a bit of a muddle.
90 minutes aside(was really over-emphasising to make my point), if we're playing a full strength/attacking lineup then surely you try to attack for the 3 points ? Or at least attack until you go a goal up and then shut up shop like we did at Forest Green ?
Maybe Hurst wanted us to attack and really go at them, I really don't know.
Not convinced personally - he said on MP it looked like a nothing game after 20 mins so why wasn't Scott barking the orders about then ?
Not saying it would have affected things either, it might have done but it's not really my main point...
We could have started the 3 players we brought off the bench ?
I wouldn't have minded patient/defensive tactics either but to leave Church out and then end up on the back foot for the majority of the game just seems a bit hard to swallow and raises a few ????
As you say, if squad players are lacking match practice because of e.g. lack of reserve team games then surely there's a case to give fringe players a run out to get them up to speed asap and help create healthy competition for places ?
The alternative seems to be to stick with the same 11 players through thick and thin - I just don't see how that can realistically work long term.
Even the managers are aware it's a squad game so I'm suprised you say Eagle should start Tuesday but can't see the case for him starting on Saturday ?
As I said BEFORE Saturdays game, "if not now then when" ?
http://www.thefishy.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1316191297/I can fully understand people thinking "If we lose then change it" but it's a bit reactive, not very pro-active.
Not just that but as I also said, Tuesday is arguably a bigger game - not the ideal time to introduce new faces into the frame !
Anyway, I've given my team for Tuesday - would be interesting to hear what others would do.