Just back to car

Quoted from diehardmariner

In terms of tactics/selections, I'm afraid Hurst got it wrong.   Yes he scored and yes he's our captain but Disley hasn't looked on song for the last 6-8 months.  The four of Brown, Clay, McLaughlin and Neilson have showed the tempo and intensity we need to succeed in this division, unfortunately Disley can't offer that at present.  By all means a good player for the squad and to bring on late to steady the ship but definitely not at the levels of the previously mentioned four other midfielders.

Worst we've been at the back all season.  We missed Boyce, did on Saturday too.  Sooner we can arrange a loan return with permanent deal to follow the better for me.  As good as Toto and Pearson are, we're better with Boyce in the side.

Obviously I am not party to what was in Hurst's head when he picked the side-you may be entirely right. Personally I think Disley played to help counter the threat of their (SIX) players over six feet tall. Given that we gave away far too many throws, corners and free kicks in areas where they could "launch" the ball into the middle this appears to me to be a reasonable selection to make.
IMO your point about Boyce is excellent. I thought he would be a big "miss" when he went back-I didn't think it would be proven quite so quickly.

Quoted from barralad

Obviously I am not party to what was in Hurst's head when he picked the side-you may be entirely right. Personally I think Disley played to help counter the threat of their (SIX) players over six feet tall. Given that we gave away far too many throws, corners and free kicks in areas where they could "launch" the ball into the middle this appears to me to be a reasonable selection to make.
IMO your point about Boyce is excellent. I thought he would be a big "miss" when he went back-I didn't think it would be proven quite so quickly.

If we thought Lincoln were a superior side to us then I'd agree with that selection. However, I'm still of the genuine belief that we're a much better outfit than them overall (they're cloggers who launch the ball forward to their big front line) and the reason we lost was they wanted it more and upped their game accordingly. Even then, we could count ourselves unfortunate to not get a point. And because I think we're a better outfit than they are, it comes back to what others have said about Hurst (wrongly IMO) changing our tactics and line up to counter other team's strengths instead of sending teams out to cause them problems. My opinion in football is that you play to your own strengths first and foremost unless a team is vastly superior to you or your own strengths blatantly don't work against that particular side. If we're as good as some of our play this season has led me to believe then we shouldn't be trying to nullify teams who probably won't be troubling the top end of the table. If we'd played with the line up and in the same way that we did against Gateshead then we'd have won, I'm certain of that.

Disley is a good player but he slows the play down too much and although he scores quite a few goals, we are at our best when moving the ball forward quickly which he rarely does.

The problem is, whether you're better than the opposition or not, if they are willing to pack their team with tall players and punt/lob it into your box at every given opportunity, you have to try and deal with this the best you can. We're not a tall team and Disley is good in the air so putting him in the team seems a pretty obvious choice to me.

The alternative view seems to be that we should have just taken the game to them and outscored them but this is easier said than done. It's always easier to stop a goal than score one and we still had more shots overall and efforts on target than them, so it wasn't exactly an enormously defensive move. Especially as Disley scored!

Though I didn't go (and haven't seen the highlights), reports are pretty clear that we lost because of a combination of poor defending and missed chances. They aren't Hurst's fault, are they? The players need to take responsibility for the mistakes which lost us the game. The team selected was good enough to win but failed too often at both ends of the pitch (as we have done several times this season), so the squad as a whole needs to buck their ideas up and start grinding out the results. We've got the ability, they just need to perform.

As much as Hurst could've changed tactics or formation. He can't legislate for sloppy defending and poor finishing. I know ultimately the book stops with the manager but these players have to take responsibility.

Quoted from brad_gtfc

As much as Hurst could've changed tactics or formation. He can't legislate for sloppy defending and poor finishing. I know ultimately the book stops with the manager but these players have to take responsibility.

watching the post match interview i think Hurst agrees with you, commented that LJL knows he should have scored, and that Nsiala should have done better with late header, Bignot should not have waited for Mckeown to move but just dealt with it himself ie row z and that he wouldnt comment on Mckeowns claim of a foul only saying it was inside the 6 yd box and he would expect it to be dealt with...got the impression some players will be getting a hard time this week in training

Regards Disley's inclusion for his aerial ability, that's a fair point.  Not sure I agree we're not a tall team though, take Neilson and Brown out of the equation and we're a fairly physical bunch.  Considering Brown goes on the post for corners and Neilson is left as the attacking outlet, we really shouldn't be conceding goals at set-pieces.

Anyway, Disley's good in the air I agree but if we were picking our team to counter their aerial game, I can't disagree with points made higher up the thread about nullifying the threat from wide.  Cut off the threat at the source, in this case the wings.  Keeping McLaughlin-Brown-Clay-Neilson as the four across the middle would have done so.  Going with a diamond left us exposed wide and, for me, broke up that wonderful pack hunting we've seen in recent weeks by Brown and Clay.  One goes in for the tackle, knowing he can't get the ball but does enough to force the attacker to push the ball further in front so the other can sweep up.  

It's done now. 3 points lost and a bit of local pride gone.  I maintain we'll have much more to shout about by next April.

Quoted from diehardmariner

Regards Disley's inclusion for his aerial ability, that's a fair point.  Not sure I agree we're not a tall team though, take Neilson and Brown out of the equation and we're a fairly physical bunch.  Considering Brown goes on the post for corners and Neilson is left as the attacking outlet, we really shouldn't be conceding goals at set-pieces.

Anyway, Disley's good in the air I agree but if we were picking our team to counter their aerial game, I can't disagree with points made higher up the thread about nullifying the threat from wide.  Cut off the threat at the source, in this case the wings.  Keeping McLaughlin-Brown-Clay-Neilson as the four across the middle would have done so.  Going with a diamond left us exposed wide and, for me, broke up that wonderful pack hunting we've seen in recent weeks by Brown and Clay.  One goes in for the tackle, knowing he can't get the ball but does enough to force the attacker to push the ball further in front so the other can sweep up.  

It's done now. 3 points lost and a bit of local pride gone.  I maintain we'll have much more to shout about by next April.

I do see where you are coming from but their threat came from the "big boot" down the middle and from set pieces especially throw-ins. The first goal I think came from a free kick, the first penalty came from a ball over the top and the winner came from a corner. Perhaps I'm being more obtuse than normal but I cannot see how somebody of McLoughlin's stature would have improved the situation...but as we are constantly reminded by certain board celebrities it's all about opinions. UTM.