To All Who Think Paul Hurst Should Go

Quoted from gtfc_chris

Seen someone reference how nice the attacking football at Gateshead was and the 37 passes before the ball hit the net. Mike Williamson - the gaffer - was a defender. Alan Shearer, the best striker in Premier League history, amassed 4 goals in his 8 game spell. I'll take the absence of longevity with Shearers reign but we need to get rid of this notion that defenders are defensive coaches and attackers are attacking coaches. Every coach will see the game as a whole with holistic ideas, the logic does not equate to "attacking player = attacking coach" and vice versa.

During his second spell, Hurst has given me the impression that he thinks anyone should be able to score given half a chance in & around the box. Signed loads of attacking minded players but very few with any real composure.

The pros always say that putting the ball in the net is the hardest thing in football, and I’m not sure he really appreciates what it takes to finish when the pressure’s on and it might be the only chance you get all afternoon. Bet there’s plenty of decent finishers when you’re stood around at Cheapside, different story when it matters.

The way we set up means there’s no slack, all forwards are doing two jobs - either pressing & running their nuts off chasing their own flick ons, or defending if you’re one of the wide players. Say it all the time but the bloke’s looking for a unicorn every transfer window and we don’t have the money for one. Maybe he’ll have to accept that some decent finishers might not be as effective if they’re defending corners in our box, or wrestling for scraps with 7ft centre-halves.

For me there is a clear dereliction of duty from all the top brass when it comes to frittering away our precious funds on long term contracts for players who clearly don't feature in the managers plans (Hunt) or are bang average at best (Vernam and Pyke).

Considering 2 of the 3 are amongst our highest earners which has left next to nothing in the pot then this hierarchy should be held to account, never happens though.

I would swing the axe on the bloody lot of them.

Don't know if this is just me, but i don't understand this recurring point around how crap or in trouble we would be if we didn't have Eisa.

We DO have him, he HAS been producing the goods for us, and Hurst signed him and selects him in the team. It's like we're almost not supposed to celebrate and appreciate him or something? Baffles me a bit.

It's a similar school of thought to the whole "take away the cup run and we were crap last season".

Ie. lets focus on the negatives and ignore the positives for the sake of our argument.

Quoted from sam gy

lets focus on the negatives and ignore the positives for the sake of our argument.

New to The Fishy?

FYI Everyone, although he did Miss the header, Pyke was flagged offside

Quoted from Chrisblor

He was a 1 goal in every 3 games striker if you measure it by minutes played while he was at town - https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/danilo-orsi/leistungsdaten/spieler/641124/plus/0?saison=2022

4 goals, 4 assists, 1119 minutes played (or approximately 1 goal and 1 assist every 279 minutes, which is roughly 3 full games). No idea why our recruitment man wasn't waving these stats in Hurst's face when he proposed letting him leave on a free and replacing him with a full-back pretending to be a striker.

PH doesn't like strikers - or not ones who score anyway. They cost a lot so he can get more defensive-minded players and concentrate on keeping things tight.

Quoted from gtfc_chris

In which case the result has been and gone and therefore we stop discussing it, the managers position shouldn't be called into question and we simply look forward to the next game.

We as the simpletons sat in the ground watching the game take our basis of the score and whether we enjoyed the game. We don't calculate stats, they don't factor into our 90 minute experience, we just judge it on how it looks and the end result. We then use this to determine whether we're any good, where we'll finish in the league and whether the manager should stay/go. All of this just based on our own personal assessment.

For those who are actually in the game and who are responsible for delivering results and factor in everything about the game, stats give them more rational information. I've not read any stats because I'm not in the pro game so they don't have my interest level, but as an example, apparently we're boring and don't create a lot. Stats might tell us that we have more entries into the final third per 90 minutes than x other teams. We might have more shots than x teams. There are that many stats that provide an indication of what is actually happening that give the management team the basis to know whether we're on the right course and it's down to player error/quality issues, or that the system is failing.

I know the argument will be "well we can all see that from the sides", but the truth is we don't. No-one is counting how many times we entered the final third, no is counting the shots, we simply watch and decide whether we felt it was good enough. As we've identified in this thread, some people like the nature of our game, some don't. Everyone will wish we'd amassed a few more points and a few more goals but no-one bases their judgements on stats from the stands but stats can provide a picture that how we play is not the issue, but individual errors within how we play are skewing the outcome. This then shifts the problem from being a tactical issue to a player issue and the need to go shopping.

For xG, if we are constantly higher than what we actually score than that suggests we need better finishers. Not the best example of hidden information because I agree that is one that can be seen more readily on the eye, but it provides the picture that creating is not the issue but finishing. If we're scoring more than our xG then it says we're riding our luck and changes to our system are needed.

I will use a more technical name for it. Bunkum springs to mind!

Honestly it's how you interpret the stats that matter and 10 different managers would come to a different conclusion with the same stats.

The problem might appear we need to do more of xyz to sort it out, but doing that upsets something else within the team structure leading to further problems. That is assuming the correct diagnosis in the first place.

Then you have the small thing of what the opposition have to say about the matter. Say you think you have found the answer to your goalscoring problems and your xg is through the roof, but the opposition goalkeeper has a blinder and you still end up with nil? Never mind you might think if we do the same next week surely goals will come. However, next week we are playing a different team with a different formation who completely nullify what worked the previous week.

Then what?

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

I will use a more technical name for it. Bunkum springs to mind!

Honestly it's how you interpret the stats that matter and 10 different managers would come to a different conclusion with the same stats.

The problem might appear we need to do more of xyz to sort it out, but doing that upsets something else within the team structure leading to further problems. That is assuming the correct diagnosis in the first place.

Then you have the small thing of what the opposition have to say about the matter. Say you think you have found the answer to your goalscoring problems and your xg is through the roof, but the opposition goalkeeper has a blinder and you still end up with nil? Never mind you might think if we do the same next week surely goals will come. However, next week we are playing a different team with a different formation who completely nullify what worked the previous week.

Then what?

Then you've identified a need to consider the opposition each week and adjust your game plan to utilise our own strengths and capitalise on the oppositions weaknesses, but apparently that isn't good football, we should just concentrate on us. You've also identified that in this hypothetical game we've played the type of football the anti-PH brigade are after, with chances aplenty by the sound of it so surely that's a tick in the box and the stats have proven their worth?

You seem adamant to prove that stats mean nothing in an age where everything is driven by them. Football Clubs and associated parties would not have spent the vast fortunes they have on understanding statistics if they did not provide meaningful and tangible information that can be used to improve performance and results. I'm in support of them and can make some logical guesses in the ways it can help identify strengths and weaknesses but there are trained people who will far better understand and provide substance to what they mean and how they are utilised.

Your argument - in some ways - proves a point I made the other day on how people see the game as either simple or complex. In sharing your opinion that stats are meaningless because the opposition are different week on week, you're effectively highlighting that we need to consider the opposition and adapt to their threats, which is a complex business that requires a lot of thought and margins for error.  If you're not and suggesting that we keep the same team because that's the way to keep it simple, you'd no doubt then cite tactical failures when we lose if PH didn't do something to mitigate what 'was obvious to everyone in the stands'. Fans can't have it both ways whereby we don't consider the opposition and play 'our way', but then blame PH if the opposition comes with a sound game plan that he doesn't adapt to.

I'm not immune to the disappointment that comes with losses and missed chances and although I don't agree with some of those who believe PH should be gone (especially those like Denni who seem to have real daggers for him), it's not without any form of understanding why people might think that way. What I find is that people are perhaps irrational in terms of their expectations. There is nothing in the last 20+ years that suggests we have any divine right to be out in front of our competitors in this league. Of course we want to be but our modern history says we are a lower L2/NL play off team. I grew up in the late 90s on Championship football and although often in relegation battles loved every minute of it and I confess to holding aspirations on behalf of the club to get back there one day. But there has to be realistic expectations of the timescale for any advancement through the leagues and we need a period of true stability before we start to have this self-belief we deserve to be 'up there'.

Quoted from sam gy

Don't know if this is just me, but i don't understand this recurring point around how crap or in trouble we would be if we didn't have Eisa.

We DO have him, he HAS been producing the goods for us, and Hurst signed him and selects him in the team. It's like we're almost not supposed to celebrate and appreciate him or something? Baffles me a bit.

Aye, I've never got this argument. The idea that a team would just play with a man missing!

Quoted from gtfc_chris

Then you've identified a need to consider the opposition each week and adjust your game plan to utilise our own strengths and capitalise on the oppositions weaknesses, but apparently that isn't good football, we should just concentrate on us. You've also identified that in this hypothetical game we've played the type of football the anti-PH brigade are after, with chances aplenty by the sound of it so surely that's a tick in the box and the stats have proven their worth?

You seem adamant to prove that stats mean nothing in an age where everything is driven by them. Football Clubs and associated parties would not have spent the vast fortunes they have on understanding statistics if they did not provide meaningful and tangible information that can be used to improve performance and results. I'm in support of them and can make some logical guesses in the ways it can help identify strengths and weaknesses but there are trained people who will far better understand and provide substance to what they mean and how they are utilised.

Your argument - in some ways - proves a point I made the other day on how people see the game as either simple or complex. In sharing your opinion that stats are meaningless because the opposition are different week on week, you're effectively highlighting that we need to consider the opposition and adapt to their threats, which is a complex business that requires a lot of thought and margins for error.  If you're not and suggesting that we keep the same team because that's the way to keep it simple, you'd no doubt then cite tactical failures when we lose if PH didn't do something to mitigate what 'was obvious to everyone in the stands'. Fans can't have it both ways whereby we don't consider the opposition and play 'our way', but then blame PH if the opposition comes with a sound game plan that he doesn't adapt to.

I'm not immune to the disappointment that comes with losses and missed chances and although I don't agree with some of those who believe PH should be gone (especially those like Denni who seem to have real daggers for him), it's not without any form of understanding why people might think that way. What I find is that people are perhaps irrational in terms of their expectations. There is nothing in the last 20+ years that suggests we have any divine right to be out in front of our competitors in this league. Of course we want to be but our modern history says we are a lower L2/NL play off team. I grew up in the late 90s on Championship football and although often in relegation battles loved every minute of it and I confess to holding aspirations on behalf of the club to get back there one day. But there has to be realistic expectations of the timescale for any advancement through the leagues and we need a period of true stability before we start to have this self-belief we deserve to be 'up there'.

But we won't know how the opposition play until the day, do we?

The fact that Crawley played "more long balls" than expected seemed to completely fox Hurst in his post match interview.

That is the basis of my argument.  Everything is based on events that have gone, and will in effect have no bearing on the next match.

Edit.the only thing you can really have any influence over is the way your own team plays, to a degree. If you hone and perfect a certain way of playing you will always give the opposition problems because although they know how you play they cannot stop it. We seem to have gone the other way - no discernable style to fall back on and an obsession with the opposition.