Arnold

Just not interested. I would send him back. Get Paddy in there to support the runs of Aswad, who was back to near his best in the first half

Maybe that's why Cambridge wanted to offload,

Good player on his day  but only when he is in the mood.

Said when he came hes not all that(same with Mckreth)and got slagged to death on here think I've been proved right about both of em.
Why they both get in the side week in week out I don't know.

Started out good, but he just doesn't care, it's clear to see. i'd be happy if he went back to Cambridge right now.

Parslow can also get shipped back off...

The more pertinent general point being, that here is an example of a good player not delivering the goods. Not playing at the levels he has demonstrated he is capable of (Brown is another example, as is Parslow), and yet, they somehow retain their place in the team despite turning in a succession of below par performances. Some players are given a chance, but will lose their place if they have a bad game, and other squad members are not given a chance at all.
Sure, you can argue that all manages have ther favourites, and that perhaps there are those players whom the manager deems absolutely essential, and where mistakes or poor form will be tolerated, or, perhaps, if there isn't really recourse to a similar standard replacement squad member, but I don't really see that logic at play in some of Hurst's thinking (?)
If it's confusing and frustrating to us, how must individuals in the squad feel knowing that this isn't a meritocracy, and that equal opportunities perhaps don't prevail in this instance, or at this club?

Look at Arnold and Brown - both of them well short of their personally established standards, but another game comes round and they stay in, or get put back in quickly. Arnold kept Nielson out of the team across several games recently - a footballer who is equally as good if not better than him, and who can play in his position in more than one system. Brown kept out Clay, and Paddy - another attacking footballing asset who never gets a fair chance - the present situation a criminal waste and disappointment for all parties. Is it getting results, at home especially? No.

Say what you like about supporters, but it's not supporters that win you promotion. It's players and managers. Personally, I'm now in a position where I don't understand the reasons for the choice of system we are playing (especially at home), and I don't understand why several players are favoured over others.
And out on the pitch - well it's just not getting results, especially at home, where the number of defeats is both embarassing and disastrous. Over the last two weeks of the season we've fallen decisively out of touch with Barnet I fear. Lose either or both of the forthcoming matches with them and we'll never turn over the lead that already stands at 15 points (that's 5 more wins than them needed). I just don't see any learning taking place, or any actual progress, and neither do many others it would seem, who are being forced away in their droves.

[quote=3898]The more pertinent general point being, that here is an example of a good player not delivering the goods. Not playing at the levels he has demonstrated he is capable of (Brown is another example, as is Parslow), and yet, they somehow retain their place in the team despite turning in a succession of below par performances. Some players are given a chance, but will lose their place if they have a bad game, and other squad members are not given a chance at all.
Sure, you can argue that all manages have ther favourites, and that perhaps there are those players whom the manager deems absolutely essential, and where mistakes or poor form will be tolerated, or, perhaps, if there isn't really recourse to a similar standard replacement squad member, but I don't really see that logic at play in some of Hurst's thinking (?)

I agree with the favourites it just ashame that some of Hursts favourites are Lennell John - Lewis and Nathan Arnold