Team For Altrincham.

Get a room you two.  

I agree Les, I won't reply.

But I still might if chaos accepts my apology for my appaling lack of reading skills on the other thread

In any case, what the hell I'll do it anyway....
Stay tuned !

80s, that 343 is the sort of side Ossie Ardiles would pick - it's certainly daring!

Quoted from chaos33

After a sequence of excellent wins based on not conceding goals, you'd change the formation of the team to one we've never played, with 3 at the back,

Like in our VERY LAST GAME you mean ?! Awful I know...

I admitted 3 at the back was a risk (what isn't ?) but you can't say it isn't positive !
I explained my reasoning about making those changes and hitting "out of form" Altrincham early doors.

More to the point, what's YOUR own "risk free" suggestion ?
A full team (ideally with well laid out positions) would help.
Very easy to criticize, not so easy to come up with your own constructive solutions !  

The way I see it, there's no "magic solution" anyway.
Keep a winning team ?
That's dinosaur has finally been put to bed LAST game - most of the fans on here wanted Neilson in !!!  
Not that we haven't been changing the team many times before and winning without him either...

And wasn't so long ago people were complaining about "defensiveness" and 4-5-1.
What the brand NEW fad / trend this time ?
"Defensive" is now THEIR magic solution to "scoring lots of goals" and automatic promotion ?
Blimey !
Defence may well play a very important part but I'd be suprised to ever hear "we should go 4-5-1 each week" from the moaners and groaners who previously wanted him to go more attacking and score shed loads of goals.  

And what if we DO go defensive and still lose anyway ?
Prey what will those "who would repeatedly criticize" say ?
Switch back to attacking again ?!!!  
It's bloody ridiculous IMO.  

Just personally I prefer to treat every game on it's own merits.
And judging by Oxford who knows, maybe Hurst does too.

For me, it beats adopting a brand new "one size fits all" miracle rule (that presumably we should stick to forever after) EACH AND EVERY GAME while we're winning !!!!  

Quoted from chaos33

including the right-footed Danny Parslow at left centre back.

Not ideal on both counts I agree.
But least we've already played 3 at the back this season so we may be partly used to it.
(not that 4 in central midfield stopped us v Halfax !!)
Hopefully we'll be causing most of the problems anyway and he'll have little to do.
And like you said YOURSELF...

Quoted from chaos33

He's always described by York fans as 'steady' and dependable' and that's what he's shown us I believe.

So yes I may have my own few personal doubts.
But given what you've said, suprised you have tbh.

But again, what's YOUR alternative ?
Who would YOU play at right back ?
Stick your team up we'll all take a look...

Quoted from chaos33

Those players who played very well on Tuesday - Disley, Neilson and Pell would all be dropped (oh dear, can't see them being happy about that after those performances)

Well Neilson (MOM) being out the side seems to have been unaffacted !!!  
IIRC wasn't it YOU who was agreeing with me about the general principle of Neilson and Pittman returning to the lineup ?
How come "cohesion and morale" didn't "drop through the floor" BEFORE Neilson returned back so well ?
Suprised you didn't mention these fears before his return !

IIRC too, Hurst only just said post match he was telling them in the dressing room about it being a "squad game".
And seem to remember it's hardly the first time he's mentioned it to them while simultaneously making changes and winning games too.
And what about Pell "coming in" out the blue ? Did that "upset the applecart" ?
I could go on ad infinum with examples but life's too short.

So in all conclusion (whatever happens on Saturday) are we really to believe "changes to the side" would be to blame ?

Quoted from chaos33

and cohesion and morale will drop through the floor.

It just feels like pure negative speculation based on no evidence I can really see.
I can only assume Hurst doesn't believe it to be a current "problem issue".
Otherwise he wouldn't have been changing it so regularly with so much success.

Quoted from chaos33

None of these defenders need a rest according to you (although others players apparently do need a respite) so they shouldn't be 'rotated' apparently, despite all playing a full 90 minutes

I've rested Magnay and Thomas.
I've selected my own team based on my OWN injury doubts (apologies I don't have Dave Moore's phone number to hand !  )

I've also suggested Hurst might play Bignot if he feels it best.
Isn't that enough ?!!

You can't rest everyone !?!!
Or are you seriously suggesting resting ALL our key defenders and playing a back 4 of Humble, Walker, Bignot and Doig ?  
If so, (with all due respect to them individually), we might as well wave the white flag and just surrender before kick off IMO.

Amd where did I say "None of these defenders need a rest" ?
Maybe they ideally do !
But like Hurst said himself, least they've got a week off to recover.
But as I also said, my own defensive changes were partly about the right back/Magnay dilemma.

Quoted from chaos33

others players apparently do need a respite"

Well don't you think some might after a very hard fought victory ?!!  
Let's get real here too...
It's generally easier for defenders to cope because they tend not to run about so much as midfielders and attackers.

So if you're gonna make changes and take risks (and what isn't ?), you're probably better off keeping your best defenders in for this one.

But as I said, this is a different kettle of fish with Magnay.
It's gonna be down to Hurst to assess the injury situation (and I trust him to !) and weigh up potential benefit v possible risk.
Last thing we'd want is for him to play and be out for 12 months if he wasn't right.
Not that I'd blame Hurst if it DID happen of course -  as we all know these things can always happen to any player at any time.

And if you mean Neilson on the bench (who's been out for a while anyway ! ) I'd have no quarms if he started.
Just thought he might be useful coming on as sub if things were deadlocked and we needed a goal.

In summary, I just hope if Hurst sticks to a "winning formula" like he did at Aldershot, we don't see another repeat.
i.e.same players are selected after winning within a tough period (yes they can feel the effects !) and we get stuffed.

Not that I subscribe to these "one size fits all" theories or "last game(s)" conclusions in any case...

Just think it's common sense to realize there's a small risk involved (shock horror when isn't there ?) if he plays all (or several of them) again after a tough game.

Just seems to me Hurst can't win.  
If he makes changes he may be wrongly accused of "tinkering" (even though Neilson just came in and got MOM)
And if we have an Aldershot repeat you (and maybe others) may criticize him for not resting his best fit defenders. (a joke anyway IMO !)

And all this after 5 wins on the bounce ?  
I do hope not but sadly nothing would suprise me.

As always whatever he does, he can't please everyone...

Every squad member has played a midweek game this week.

My team would be as Pete's I think.