new player coming in ( MAYBE)!

Quoted from LongEatonMariner

So I get it, you're going to ruin every thread on here by turning into being about you. Maybe you should get your own forum?

Sorry, I heard maybe you should get your own forum

Quoted from chaos33

If we sign another ex York player I will probably throw in the towel and never go again  

Even if it was Michael Coulson?

Quoted from jonnyboy82

no doubt that this lad can win games though on his day.

We can soon knock that out of him!!!

Serious though, the guy sounds useful, but so did makreath et al. Would just like these players to do what comes natural to them and not over coached

Depends what we mean by "over-coached".

Receiving a lot of coaching can't be a bad thing. Surely it only adds to the player's knowledge or technical ability. Its then down to the players decision-making to put it into action.

Where we possibly fall down, I think, is taking away a bit of creative freedom/flexibility from players like this. The set-up of the team and the approach/tactics we have, clearly make us more solid as a defensive unit. But we've had a few attacking players (wingers ) that have possibly had their defensive responsibilities prioritised so much that it takes away from their attacking capabilities.

Nielson likes to drift off from the line and move into areas where the opposition aren't sure who should be picking him up. It gets him into good positions, causes their organisation to be disrupted, and creates space elsewhere (for full backs to exploit for example). But he often finds himself out of the team or substituted.

I could be making more of this than there is. But it is a shame when we've seen people play so well against us who don't /can't recreate this in the black & white stripes.

Quoted from Tommy

Depends what we mean by "over-coached".

Receiving a lot of coaching can't be a bad thing. Surely it only adds to the player's knowledge or technical ability. Its then down to the players decision-making to put it into action.

Where we possibly fall down, I think, is taking away a bit of creative freedom/flexibility from players like this. The set-up of the team and the approach/tactics we have, clearly make us more solid as a defensive unit. But we've had a few attacking players (wingers ) that have possibly had their defensive responsibilities prioritised so much that it takes away from their attacking capabilities.

Nielson likes to drift off from the line and move into areas where the opposition aren't sure who should be picking him up. It gets him into good positions, causes their organisation to be disrupted, and creates space elsewhere (for full backs to exploit for example). But he often finds himself out of the team or substituted.

I could be making more of this than there is. But it is a shame when we've seen people play so well against us who don't /can't recreate this in the black & white stripes.

He was chucked back in for the Lincoln game, this was not due to an injury to anyone else, so I would suggest he just lost his place after a bit of poor form. Sadly he was injured after 30 minutes, I ilke to see him in the team, I think we have looked really exciting when we have played 433 with him and pittman playing with the Shop.

Quoted from Tommy

Depends what we mean by "over-coached".

Receiving a lot of coaching can't be a bad thing. Surely it only adds to the player's knowledge or technical ability. Its then down to the players decision-making to put it into action.

Where we possibly fall down, I think, is taking away a bit of creative freedom/flexibility from players like this. The set-up of the team and the approach/tactics we have, clearly make us more solid as a defensive unit. But we've had a few attacking players (wingers ) that have possibly had their defensive responsibilities prioritised so much that it takes away from their attacking capabilities.

Nielson likes to drift off from the line and move into areas where the opposition aren't sure who should be picking him up. It gets him into good positions, causes their organisation to be disrupted, and creates space elsewhere (for full backs to exploit for example). But he often finds himself out of the team or substituted.

I could be making more of this than there is. But it is a shame when we've seen people play so well against us who don't /can't recreate this in the black & white stripes.

We have players with flair who are not encouraged to play with freedom/to their strengths. I know this for a fact, please don't shoot the messenger.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

We have players with flair who are not encouraged to play with freedom/to their strengths. I know this for a fact, please don't shoot the messenger.

This in a nutshell

Rodney Marsh first raised the issue of over coaching back in his playing days.This is one of the reasons he did not play for England as much as he should,that and the alleged comment when Sir Alf is reportedly said to him ' I going to play you for the first half and pull you off at half time'

Rodney replied that's nice Alf we only get an orange at Q.P.R.

It makes you wonder though. Why sign or re-sign a player like Neilson if you are not going to play him and let him do what he does best? The same applies to Arnold. Presumably they are expected to stay on the touchline and run up and down a 10 yard wide channel but neither is that kind of player. Both have scored great goals by moving infield and both have created goals by doing the unexpected.

I have no idea exactly what the manager tells the players but we must see the result on the field don't we? From that evidence it looks as though he wants them to work in military discipline which is fine when you don't have the ball and stopping the other side from playing but obviously restrictive going forward. It seems a bit of a philosophy of fear to me.

It's plain for all to see that Arnold should just stick to his hairdressing. He's bloody useless. Nielson on the other hand should be starting every week. I don't understand the criticism he gets from Hurst, especially considering how bad Arnold has been.