Just Back

It's a shame really that the thread has got caught up in a discussion re:- Ross Hannah. I'd be interested to know where yesterday's second half performance leaves Scott Neilson. In the first half he had Guiseley in all sorts of problems when he ran at them but drifted in and out of the game too often to have any real impact. As others have said he does have a tendency to come inside which loses width. Second half Arnold stayed much wider and did simple things very effectively and we benefited.

Quoted from barralad

It's a shame really that the thread has got caught up in a discussion re:- Ross Hannah. I'd be interested to know where yesterday's second half performance leaves Scott Neilson. In the first half he had Guiseley in all sorts of problems when he ran at them but drifted in and out of the game too often to have any real impact. As others have said he does have a tendency to come inside which loses width. Second half Arnold stayed much wider and did simple things very effectively and we benefited.

Wouldn't mind seeing Neilson on the right with Arnold on the left.

I thought Neilson did ok - but Arnold did much better. Neilson took a free kick which brought out a great save from their keeper, and he put two excellent deliveries into the box (one of them LJL should've buried).

So I was a little bit surprised to see him replaced at half time, but credit must go to Hurst for making that change because it worked.

As most posters have said or implied it wasn't a vintage performance however it's good to be able to win without firing on all cylinders.Credit PH on making good in game changes.Perhaps we might just be seeing the start of Arnolds "real"Town career.Good day and lets have another home tie.

Quoted from LookBackInAngers

As most posters have said or implied it wasn't a vintage performance however it's good to be able to win without firing on all cylinders.Credit PH on making good in game changes.Perhaps we might just be seeing the start of Arnolds "real"Town career.Good day and lets have another home tie.

Think you are right with summing up yesterday ,  Did you go ?  I wasn't really sure what to expect  but thought that if Guiseley scored first we would struggle  . We won and now to the first round propper . However it's probably left more questions than answers yet again of who plays where and when .

Quoted from Abdul19

Wouldn't mind seeing Neilson on the right with Arnold on the left.

This.

Got to say that I was a bit disappointed with Guiseley. I thought they'd have a bit more about them than they had yesterday.

Quoted from barralad

I'd be interested to know where yesterday's second half performance leaves Scott Neilson. In the first half he had Guiseley in all sorts of problems when he ran at them but drifted in and out of the game too often to have any real impact. As others have said he does have a tendency to come inside which loses width.

Wondering the same...

Perhaps there's a wider question concerning Neilson's best position.

It's not like the "width" issue hasn't cropped up before.
Always easy to forget it's as much down to the team to feed wingers (spreading the ball) as it is for wingers to take responsibility when they become isolated or have the ball.
But whether that was the case yesterday (like in previous games) I honestly couldn't say, just we looked sharper after H/T.

Perhaps Neilson would be better centrally behind a front man/2 ?
That's where he seems to pop up...
Surely it's no co-incidence he spoke about scoring more goals even before the season started ?

In any case it begs the question what would the ideal team look like ?..

Quoted from Abdul19

Wouldn't mind seeing Neilson on the right with Arnold on the left.

And drop Mackreth, that's one option...

tbh not convinced swapping sides will solve the underlying issue of whether Neilson is a 4-4-2 winger, personally I'm not convinced he is.

But even so, it looks strong enough to at least try.
That doesn't mean I would autmoatically drop Mackreth however, another underrated player IMO.
Whatever your opinion it's a round peg in a round hole.

In summary, if Shop and Pope are up front then perhaps either Mackreth makes way or it's 4-3-1-2...? Or Neilson in a 4-3-3 ?

Perhaps the other issue at large is our inability to "unlock" teams.
I don't particularly subscribe to Hurst's view that Guiseley made life difficult, but you can certainly say we've failed to unlock teams who've come to defend in the past.

It's great Hurst made changes and found width yesterday.
But let's remember, we don't always HAVE to go with width, players in the centre can be just as effective.

My point is our wingers couldn't "get round the back" when they played 5/6 at the back before.
Horses for courses...

For me there's a need to continue to also work on unlocking teams through the centre (lest we risk suffering more 0-0 frustrations in the future) and tbh, think we could do worse than watching Guiseley's 10 minute attacking 2nd half spell for inspiration !

The more adaptable we are at adopting different successful playing styles the better IMO.

Quoted from 120797

we could do worse than watching Guiseley's 10 minute attacking 2nd half spell for inspiration !

The more adaptable we are at adopting different successful playing styles the better IMO.

But we went down the other end and scored because they had pushed forward to try and rescue the game.
The price you pay for all out attacking. Not much inspiration there I'm afraid.

UTM

Simply suggesting working more on our approach play around the box...
Call it "all out attacking" (?) if you must but breaking down teams who come to defend en masse seems a fair concern.
You'll take the 0-0 at home ?!

In any case we may well find ourselves needing to go all out attack (e.g. if losing) in the future.
A bit of practice on the training ground wouldn't do any harm...