Just back...

Quoted from chaos33

I wanted him to explain the positioning and tactics but it just didn't happen.

Well maybe JT is the one at fault then.

Let's be fair, he partly did what you suggested...
http://www.thefishy.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1415161277//id-910446#num35

Quoted from chaos33

Personally I would play Nielson, Pitman and McLaughlin on Saturday, even if they only get 30-40 minutes at some point. I think we can still field a very strong team - perhaps many people's idea of our 'strongest team' (a complicated concept in itself) and try to nurture sharpness and morale across the squad.

It's a shame if you can't give him any credit for it.

Quoted from chaos33

I want Hurst to go 4-3-1-2 or at least, the shape that brought rich rewards against Gateshead and Alfreton on Tuesday but I don't think he will. Why has he deviated from this? Genuine question.

Sure none of us have the power to read Hurst's mind...

Let's look at the facts instead shall we ?
Gateshead was 4-3-3
Alfreton was 4-4-2
You want him to go 4-3-1-2 at least.
However we've also racked up LOTS of wins playing 4-5-1.

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw.  
Suppose I'm thinking there's no "magic formation".
Regards formation and which players he should drop, I'm sure "Team for Halifax" will be up in the near future if you wish to make any specific suggestions.

Here's my very basic summary on the recent chain of events...
Hurst wins.
He gets criticized for 4-5-1.
He changes the formation to go more attacking.
We lose.

Not that we shouldn't go more attacking when it suits IMO.
Just unfortunately we've no divine right to keep beating League 2 teams even if we have done before.
Scunny and Northampton were struggling when we turned them over.
Laws got the boot straight after the replay defeat.
Northampton just about survived relegation.
We pushed Huddersfield in the Championship but they were hardly flying at the time either.
How good Oxford (and we) were on the day is obviously debatable...

All 4 goals on this video >> [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29907423]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29907423[/url]

Quoted from 120797

Well maybe JT is the one at fault then.

Let's be fair, he partly did what you suggested...
http://www.thefishy.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1415161277//id-910446#num35

It's a shame if you can't give him any credit for it.


Sure none of us have the power to read Hurst's mind...

Let's look at the facts instead shall we ?
Gateshead was 4-3-3
Alfreton was 4-4-2
You want him to go 4-3-1-2 at least.
However we've also racked up LOTS of wins playing 4-5-1.

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw.  
Suppose I'm thinking there's no "magic formation".
Regards formation and which players he should drop, I'm sure "Team for Halifax" will be up in the near future if you wish to make any specific suggestions.

Here's my very basic summary on the recent chain of events...
Hurst wins.
He gets criticized for 4-5-1.
He changes the formation to go more attacking.
We lose.

Not that we shouldn't go more attacking when it suits IMO.
Just unfortunately we've no divine right to keep beating League 2 teams even if we have done before.
Scunny and Northampton were struggling when we turned them over.
Laws got the boot straight after the replay defeat.
Northampton just about survived relegation.
We pushed Huddersfield in the Championship but they were hardly flying at the time either.
How good Oxford (and we) were on the day is obviously debatable...

You're obsessed.

I agree that Tondeur was to blame for the post match interview. He no longer dares to ask challenging questions.

Ok, he went 4-4-2. Nielson got about 10 minutes, Paddy a bit more. Both evidently did well. Pitman was played out of position for the most part. Almost everyone who had commented has said they couldn't understand the formation and positioning of certain players. Tondeur couldn't, but he thought it inappropriate to ask about it evidently.

I have recently been giving Hurst credit when getting it right. It's just my view that 4-3-1-2 or 4-3-3 would be ideal at home on many occasions, just as it's just my view that we should have adopted the pressing game advocated by Big Chris. Never mind.

Ok, have some credit Mr Hurst. You got it right today (?) and my ideas are cr@p anyway ?!?
Haven't I already said (and repeated) that my opinions on today are worth little?

I'm moving on. Big game Tuesday.

Well , when the team was announced I wondered what formation it would be . As has been said Pittman and Arnold appeared to be doing the same role in the same position .  Lenny was busy but again well marshaled , had his shot gone in ! might have altered Oxfords game plan doubt it really . Twenty minutes in our midfield seemed to do a Chuck Norris and go missing in action .

My big concern is that if they are in the lower half of division 2 and they controlled the game .They passed the ball better , controlled the ball better won every second ball , just how many saves did their keeper have to make ?     Even if we managed to gain promotion big changes would have to be made again .

All well and good saying a bad day at the office , just shows how , without Magney and Brown we are a mid table conference side .  As we walked out , my son said it was a bit of a nothing game , probably right .
The bright red sky was nice and the strange cloud formations were interesting though .  

Quoted from TAGG

"Wasn't half as bad as the scoreline suggested"---Yes it was. Did you really go to the game??????
"harsh on himself"--- so he should be, the way he set the team up today was all wrong and he should have changed things at half time but didnt.
I was so looking forward to the game today and having the buzz of a good cup run but I think the players conned the fans today No balls, No graft and No idea.
Will be at BP Tuesday to see a lot better performance UTM  

Don't know about you TAGG , but I was thinking it was like last season after christmas,  when our displays didn't come up to much . They shouldn't have been that better than us , in all honesty we gave them an easy game .

Quoted from DocTower

My big concern is that if they are in the lower half of division 2 and they controlled the game .They passed the ball better , controlled the ball better won every second ball , just how many saves did their keeper have to make ?     Even if we managed to gain promotion big changes would have to be made again .

All well and good saying a bad day at the office , just shows how , without Magney and Brown we are a mid table conference side .  As we walked out , my son said it was a bit of a nothing game , probably right .
The bright red sky was nice and the strange cloud formations were interesting though .  

Exactly what I said to my mate after the third goal went in - if they're a failing league two team, who didn't have their best goal scorer available and were using their third choice keeper and they still comfortably walked all over us, we've had a real reality check about what awaits us in League 2 assuming we even manage to get promotion this year.

It was a tough, frustrating watch yesterday no doubt about it. What I don't understand is why, when we went 3-0 down and were pretty much done for (and therefore had nothing to lose) why we didn't change to a more attacking formation and just throw everything we had at them and attack our asses off? It wouldn't have really mattered if we'd subsequently conceded another three goals (except perhaps to psychologically unsettle Macca, which of course we wouldn't want) but at least we'd have given it our all.

Oxford consistently got the ball and broke extremely fast and straight at us - in fact I couldn't believe how quickly they got from action in their own goal mount, and down to our half. Whereas we'd get the ball, pass it around, pass it back to Macca, who'd hoof it up field and it'd drop to one of their players. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Such a frustrating game.

Interesting comments I agree if Lennies effort had gone in earlier it would have been a lot better contest the crowd were getting up for it but they were fast and slick on the break the lad took his goals well in the first half.  Their big bald guy mopped everything up in the air and on the ground he was immense definitely their MOTM.

Us  we started off brightly and passed it around lovely but faded after half an hour both teams looked relaxed as normal with the pressure of League off only we looked far to relaxed at the back unable to cope with their pace. Thought Neilson looked lively and industrious certainly hungry for the ball which was nice to see, we were beaten by a better side but hey ho it's over let's focus on the most important thing getting back into the league proper. Still think we have players capable of that and it's the best team we have had since we came down.  KEEP THE FAITH UTM.

What did JT see for Pearsons goal! Quote 'And Pearson got a foot in'???????
UTMM

Quoted from gobby

What did JT see for Pearsons goal! Quote 'And Pearson got a foot in'???????
UTMM

That's what it looked like from the press box. Having seen the goals again it was a great finish.

Quoted from Chrisblor

The whole team had an off day (and we weren't helped by the awful, lop sided and ineffective formation Hurst had us playing in the first half). I don't think Oxford were particularly good - we just wasted possession thoroughout with bad passing and miscontrolled balls. Mackreth, Disley and Clay were all very poor. Pittman & Arnold looked like they had no idea where to play. LJL had one good run and shot which clattered the post, but was otherwise anonymous. The back 4 was disjointed and error prone. Just a terrible all round performance.

We looked marginally better with Neilson and McLoughlin in the team, but Hannah managed to get caught offside 3 times in his short cameo, so nothing has changed there.

Disagree that Disley and Clay had poor games. Mackreth and Arnold were invisible and not getting back, that was why these two couldn't put their stamp on the game.  Thought that Sisley in particular played well and our best moves in the first half came through him.  Lenny did well holding the ball up but our side midfielders failed to give him options when he got the ball, had the one that hit the post actually have gone in then it would have made Oxford come at us instead of weighing us up before hitting us on the break with pace.

For me, the tactics/set up in the first half was wrong - we should have gone at them with an attacking formation.

At the end of the day we weren't ever gonna win the cup (hard to accept I know) so let's move on and get a win against Halifax on Tuesday, the cup will be forgotten about by then.

UTM